Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Rural Transport

Mr. Pike:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to monitor the service provision level (a) in rural areas and (b) on Sundays and at off-peak times.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He is chairing the Transport Council in Luxembourg today.
The Transport Research Laboratory has published several reports on the changing pattern of bus services, including one recently on rural bus services.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, as we forecast when the Transport Act 1985 went through, because local authorities do not have enough money for subsidised services there is a rapidly declining off-peak service on some days and in rural areas? The same will happen on the railways because of privatisation unless the Government recognise the social need for a public transport service.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman asks about railway privatisation. I can confirm that central funding will be applied to the subsidisation of socially necessary rail services. Through the franchising authority, the state will provide sufficient funding to ensure the running of socially necessary services.

Mr. Donald Anderson: As the Minister well knows, the deterioration in off-peak services was predicted, was bound to happen, and has happened. Has the Minister attempted to monitor the mergers in the bus industry and is he anxious about increasing monopolisation in the industry?

Mr. Freeman: It is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading to monitor the bus industry and, where appropriate, action is taken by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is not the responsibility of the Department of Transport to take action, but the Department monitors the performance of the industry. The recent Transport Research Laboratory report about which I spoke refers to service patterns in four rural areas and concludes that in recent years there has been no significant change in the provision of services.

Ms. Walley: I am stunned at the lack of concern among Conservative Members about the effects of bus

deregulation on rural transport. In view of what the Minister has said, why is he not prepared to recommend that subsidies for standard spending assessments should be ring fenced? We are worried about the way in which bus journeys have decreased by as much as 18 per cent. since bus deregulation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said, no matter what assurances the Minister gives about central funding for British Rail privatisation, there will not be the same concern to ring fence rural services following rail privatisation.

Mr. Freeman: The Government have no proposals to ring fence specific provision through the revenue support grant and standard spending assessments, either for subsidising socially necessary bus services or for concessionary bus fares. It is for local authorities to determine their own priorities. I accept that those choices are difficult, but local authorities must make them.

Manchester Airport (Rail Link)

Mr. Bennett:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about a railway link southwards from Manchester airport.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): This is a matter for British Rail, in consultation with the local authorities and the airport company. I understand that a working party has been set up to consider the case for a southern link.

Mr. Bennett: The Minister will be aware that people in Greater Manchester are delighted about the progress that has been made to establish the railway station at the airport and at the fact that from next May there will be a first-class rail service from the north of England to the airport. Does he agree that it is tragic that for the want of approximately a 100-yard curve, the airport will not be linked to the whole of the midlands? Is it not rather odd that although the Government can produce large sums for transport in London, they cannot find sufficient to set up 100 yards of track to enable the airport to be linked both north and south?

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the fact that the northern link is due to be commissioned in May 1993 and that it will provide direct and excellent access from Manchester to the airport. He asked about further possible links and I will draw his remarks to the attention of British Rail, which will have ultimate responsibility for that matter.

Settle-Carlisle Line

Mr. Booth:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the Settle-Carlisle route.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): This is a matter for British Rail in the immediate future. In the longer term, the line, like all others, will be franchised and subsidy for socially necessary services will continue.

Mr. Booth: Beyond saying that the Carlisle to Settle railway will extend to Finchley, will the Minister kindly assure the House—moving from rural to urban


regeneration—that in future urban regeneration schemes, infrastructure and particularly rail infrastructure will be thought about and put in place at the formative stages?

Mr. Carlisle: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in this sector. As he knows, we have substantial interest and investment in the Sheffield and Manchester schemes and we recognise that those schemes can do a great deal for urban communities. As to the Settle to Carlisle route, since British Rail was refused consent for this to close in 1989 there has been great success with the scheme, and substantial investment has been made. I am glad to tell the House that work on the famous Ribblehead viaduct has been completed, stations have been improved and platforms extended. This will provide a corridor for substantial investment in this beautiful part of our country.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable amount of work done by the supporters of the line to promote it, and that this involved surveys of local businesses? Will he take into account the fact that this line is predominantly for social and recreational use, so that any subsidy purely for travelling to work and other similar purposes will not go a long way to subsidising the line?

Mr. Carlisle: I realise how much loved the line is, and that is one reason why it survived attacks in previous years. I believe that it has a future not only for social and recreational reasons but because of the service that it can give to the general community. It is supported by a whole range of people. It is interesting to note that the standing conference consists not only of the local authority but of the tourist board, the Rural Development Commission, voluntary groups and the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority. The recent report, "Settle to Carlisle: Opportunities for Development", offers the real way forward for this famous line.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there could be a hidden agenda here? When I see the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) tabling questions about the Settle to Carlisle railway and the Minister giving a positive reply, I begin to put two or three things together. Is it conceivable in this hidden agenda that the hon. Member for Finchley is thinking about getting a job there, running the show on the Settle to Carlisle line, and vacating his seat at Finchley so that the queen across the water—Lady Thatcher—can inherit it? If so, I have a good suggestion: the line can be renamed the Chiltern Hundreds.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman would see not only a hidden agenda but a plot under every support of the Ribblehead viaduct.

London Underground

Mr. Carrington:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of London Underground to discuss improvements to the underground train service.

Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairman of London Underground regularly to discuss a variety of issues, including improvements to the underground train service.

Mr. Carrington: My hon. Friend will be aware that the new Westminster and Chelsea hospital opens in April next year. The hospital is badly served by London Underground and if Professor Tomlinson's proposals for London's health services are implemented, communications with the hospital will be even more vital. In the planning for the Chelsea-Hackney route, will my hon. Friend consider the proposals to put a station near that hospital to serve the patients? Will he also consider the possibility of speeding up construction of the route, which will be even more important in the future than it has been in the past?

Mr. Norris: I know of my hon. Friend's considerable concern about rail services in his constituency. The Government have safeguarded the route of the Chelsea-Hackney line and thus demonstrated their confidence in the viability of the project. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand when I tell him that I cannot give any assurances on when construction might commence.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that the underground service provides no stations in the London borough of Greenwich? That is why there is particular concern about progress on the Jubilee line. When will the Minister be able to make an announcement, and will that announcement be positive, that the Government will proceed to build the Jubilee line extension?

Mr. Norris: I wish that I could give the hon. Gentleman a full and complete answer to that question. He will have to satisfy himself with the response that he knows that I am obliged to make, which is that the matter is not one on which I can deliberate at this stage. He is right about the benefits that the line will bring to his constituency and to others that it will serve.

Mr. Bowis: May I endorse the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington)? Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that among those seeking to reach the excellent new hospital facility will be my constituents from south of the river? It is important that the Chelsea-Hackney line comes in soon and continues south of the river into Wandsworth.

Mr. Norris: I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said about possible options for the route of the Chelsea-Hackney line at the southern end. It is right that several options are available which have not yet been fully explored. I shall be happy to take his suggestions on board.

Mr. Cohen: Has the Minister seen today the survey produced by the Association of London Authorities, which shows that fares in London are four times higher than in Paris, six times higher than in Rome and Madrid and eight times higher than in Athens? At the same time, the underground system has not had investment to match fare rises. Does the Minister agree that in those circumstances there is no case for further fare rises? Will he come down from his ivory tower and admit that the price is not right?

Mr. Norris: Someone has to pay for the operation of the rail service—and that means either the taxpayer or the user. I am convinced that it is right that users should pay enough to cover at least the majority of the operating costs of London Underground. I am sure that the hon.
Gentleman knows that there still has to be a subsidy of the operating costs. If users pay an appropriate amount of the costs, the taxpayer's contribution flows straight through into new investment. That must be in our interests. That seems to be something that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have overlooked.

Mr. John Marshall: Would my hon. Friend care to recollect his journey on the Northern line with me? Does he agree that existing services on that line are Victorian and need to be brought up to date? Does he agree also that it would be quite illogical to appoint a Minister with responsibilities for transport in London and then to cut or cancel expenditure on the London Underground system?

Mr. Norris: I remember my journey on the underground with my hon. Friend with particular piquancy. It was an interesting and illustrative experience. In all seriousness, he knows that London Underground fully appreciates the extent of the need to modernise the Northern line service. He will know of the considerable programme of modernisation on the Central line, which is worth about £800 million. He will know also that London Underground currently proposes to follow on from that work to the Northern line.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Peter Snape—[Interruption.] Mr. Tony Banks.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know who should be more offended, Madam Speaker.
I welcome the Minister to the Government Dispatch Box on the occasion of my latest and most enduring comeback. Will he confirm that thousands of jobs in construction and manufacturing industry outside London are waiting on a decision on the Jubilee line extension? It is appalling that the indecision and lack of an announcement from the Government should be leading to so much uncertainty. If the Minister cannot make an announcement today, will he tell the House whether he is personally in favour of the Jubilee line extension?

Mr. Norris: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. As he suggested, he has made more come backs than Frank Sinatra. I hope that this one will prove enduring, as I am sure that our exchanges will be enjoyable.
I am fully aware of the extent to which all mega-projects can generate jobs. It is clear, however, that such schemes must be subject not only to the criterion of desirability but to that of affordability. That will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues when they consider the whole public expenditure round. There is no doubt in my mind that the Jubilee line is an excellent scheme, and I hope very much that it will proceed. The decision will, however, be made by others on the basis of overall affordability. I acknowledge that I must be as much subject to such pressures as any other Minister.

Rail Privatisation

Mr. Hawkins:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has had to the White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways".

Mr. Harvey:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's plans to privatise British Rail.

Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a number of responses following publication in July of the Government's proposals for privatisation of British Rail. We plan to introduce this autumn the main legislation, to enable our proposals to be implemented. On 12 October, we published a detailed consultation document on franchising. I look forward to the responses, especially those from firms interested in taking on franchises.

Mr. Hawkins: I again draw attention of my hon. Friend to a problem of which I know he is aware from our previous discussions. I refer to the withdrawal of the last remaining direct InterCity services to my constituency from London and Glasgow. I thank my hon. Friend for the attention that he has paid to that matter in the past, and ask him to take full account of the views of no fewer than 11,000 people who signed a petition asking British Rail to reinstate those through services. Will my hon. Friend comment on the scope for the introduction of through direct services from London and Glasgow to Blackpool as a result of the Government's plans for privatisation?

Mr. Freeman: Currently, decisions about rail services are for British Rail. Although it suspended the direct service to which my hon. Friend referred, a connecting service is available from London and Glasgow. As to the future, I envisage that when the new regime is in place after full parliamentary debate and discussion, private sector operators will want to run specific services, with the agreement of the regulator, on a train path. It may be that Blackpool-Euston will be such a service; and if it can be run viably and a train path is available, I will welcome that.

Mr. Harvey: Will the Minister comment on the collapse of Charterail and on the end of the StageCoach service to Aberdeen—two pilot private operations—and say whether the Select Committee on Transport will have a chance to report before the privatisation Bill comes before the House?

Mr. Freeman: I regret the demise of Charterail, but that had more to do with the recession and the company's optimistic plans than the charging regime, which is currently not in place but is operated ad hoc by British Rail. I do not believe that we can fault British Rail for Charterail's demise. Under the present regime—not the new track-charging regime which will be in place on privatisation—StageCoach reached agreement with British Rail. That company also was clearly too ambitious, as not enough tickets were sold. However, I am pleased that services will continue, and that StageCoach will sell tickets to London not only from Aberdeen and Edinburgh but from Glasgow. I repeat that it is the Government's intention to publish a Bill next month.

Mr. Adley: May I put it to my hon. Friend—quietly and, I hope, thoughtfully—that his proposals are novel, complex, controversial and untried? Would not the Government be better off listening to all the issues and debating them thoroughly before producing a Bill? My hon. Friend has referred to the franchising White Paper.


As the document contains no information about charges, should not that fundamental issue be explored before we rush into introducing a Bill?
May I ask my hon. Friend again whether he agrees that it would be good for all concerned if publication of the Bill, which presumably cannot take place until the paving Bill has received Royal Assent, were delayed until the Select Committee has had a chance to examine the issues?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right in saying that there should be thorough discussion of the Government's proposals. We are trying to meet the timetable, and it seems to us that the publication of a Bill will help the process. Detailed examination of the Bill will take up much of 1993 and the Select Committee hearings will provide a valuable forum for the Government and, indeed, others to comment on the proposals.
I draw a distinction between the publication of our proposals for the framework of introducing the private sector, and the implementation of those proposals. We have no plans to rush the process; indeed, we expect both passenger franchises and the sale of freight to start operating for the first time in 1994.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister agree that, on the whole, it is better to take evidence before making a decision than to take it after that decision has been made? Would not the Minister benefit from an opportunity for the Government to find out a bit about the subject, before they have to reverse their views too publicly?

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the Select Committee's deliberations, which will go into great detail, will be very valuable to the Bill's Committee stages in both Houses. I do not accept that the principles of our privatisation proposals, which we have set out very clearly, cannot be debated in the House. The debate that will take place on Thursday will provide us with an ample opportunity to consider the broad principles. Of course we are prepared to listen to discussion of the details: that is why we published a franchise document a short time ago.
The Select Committee's conclusions will be extremely important, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I look forward to appearing before the Committee on Wednesday.

Mr. Dunn: In the interests of my constituents in north-west Kent, may I urge my hon. Friend to refuse to listen to those who counsel for delay? Does my hon. Friend agree that British Rail managers, or those who succeed them, are bound to welcome the privatisation plans because they will place full responsibility, control and accountability where they belong—with those who run the railway system?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. There is no doubt that our proposals have received a very positive reaction—not only from some 50 companies in the private sector which have expressed an interest in the principle of franchising the passenger rail services and the sale of freight service, but from British Rail management and staff. Our proposals are certainly gradualist, and they will be thought out, argued and presented in great detail. The process will not be rushed, and it will work.

Mr. Prescott: The House will note that the Minister has given the first indications of another U-turn in

Government policy: no longer are we promised a full-blooded rail privatisation Bill—the Government are now talking of what is basically an enabling Bill.
Given that the Minister will have to rely on the advice of the regulator, will he tell us whether the regulator has been appointed, and whether he satisfies the condition specified in the Department of Transport's advertisement, which states:
Knowledge of public transport not essential"?

Mr. Freeman: The appointment has not yet been made. The appointment of someone to fulfil the responsibilities of regulator cannot be made until the Houses of Parliament have approved this measure and it receives Royal Assent. In the interim, there is a job to be done in 1993: to regulate the provisions of international access under the European Community directive of 1991. We are looking for a regulator with understanding and intelligence of regulation and of the operation of public services and the protection of consumer interests.

Heathrow Airport (Noise)

Mr. Jessel:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take in 1993 to reduce the aircraft noise around Heathrow.

Mr. Norris: Heathrow will continue to benefit in 1993 from the replacement of older, noisier, chapter 2 aircraft with modern, quieter chapter 3 types.

Mr. Jessel: Although the Government have an excellent record on aircraft noise, including the decision to refuse planning permission for a fifth terminal at Heathrow in the 1980s, and the removal of the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link, is my hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of people living around Heathrow, where there are 1,000 flights a day, find aircraft noise a curse and a pestilence which spoils their enjoyment of their homes? Apart from emergencies, should not night flights be banned altogether?

Mr. Norris: The whole House knows that my hon. Friend has been a doughty fighter on behalf of his constituents against noise pollution. I congratulate him on this latest effort. My hon. Friend knows that the night-flying restrictions are due for review and that we intend to introduce new ones in the winter season of 1993. That process will involve wide public consultation, during which I know that my hon. Friend's views and those of his constituents will be heard. As for any application that might be made to expand services at Heathrow, my hon. Friend will appreciate that no planning application has formally been made at this point. However, when it is made, the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have to consider all the issues involved in deciding whether to grant permission.

Ms. Hoey: Will the Minister apply his attention to a particularly nasty form of aircraft, the helicopter, which, as he knows, is being put to increasing use, particularly along the river? Can he tell us why his Department is being so secretive about ferreting around trying to find new heliport sites along the river? Can he tell us why he will not now make public the sites that his Department is looking


at so that the people who live in those areas can make their views known? I am sure that he knows what they will want to say.

Mr. Norris: I know of no hit list of secret sites for helicopter sites on the Thames. However, I do not believe that the Battersea heliport is adequate. A major city such as London ought to have a heliport that is much closer to the financial centre. I should welcome the proposal for a heliport in such a position as it would enhance the economic life of our city. There has been a great deal of Nimbyism about previous proposals to find such a site, but I trust that when it is identified—I have not had one put to me yet—the hon. Lady will join me in supporting something that will do a great deal to enhance London's reputation as a financial centre.

Mr. Wilkinson: When my hon. Friend comes to review night movements at Heathrow, or any other proposal affecting air transport services to or from that airport, will he bear it in mind that it is the premier gateway to Europe, an invaluable source of foreign exchange and a vital source of employment for tens of thousands of local residents? Will he also remember that the noise footprints around the airport have been considerably reduced over the years because of the quieter aircraft that have come into service and that the really important aim is to get into service the high-speed surface transport link to Paddington? Can he help on that matter, too?

Mr. Norris: I acknowledge that my hon. Friend's sentiments about the importance of Heathrow are widely shared. When it comes to night-flying restrictions, the British Airports Authority has to balance the commercial needs of airlines against the environmental impact of those airlines' operations. It is perfectly proper that consideration of these matters should involve public consultation. My hon. Friend knows that the Heathrow express proposal is being taken forward by the BAA and British Rail. I look forward to there being some progress so that the link can be provided as soon as possible.

Mr. Snape: As Dan-Air has become the latest victim of the recession, does the Minister think that British Airways' replacement aircraft will lead to a reduction in aircraft noise and, indeed, a reduction in noise from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who I notice is not with us now? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he is."] I am sorry; he is skulking. Will the Minister confirm that Virgin and British Midland were offered the same deal as that accepted by British Airways, but preferred to wait for Dan-Air's collapse to pick up its routes and slots without having to save jobs or meet redundancy payments to its former employees?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman knows that the chapter 3 requirements on noise extend to new aircraft being manufactured, which will gradually lead to improvements in noise levels at Heathrow and elsewhere. He knows that the commercial criteria of the Dan-Air transaction are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who will consider all aspects of it in considering whether to take further action.

Network SouthEast

Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken to monitor the performance of Network SouthEast in its West Anglia division.

Mr. Freeman: I receive reports on British Rail's performance against its charter standards every four weeks and pursue any points of concern as necessary. I am pleased to say that for the year so far West Anglia has exceeded its charter targets.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is insufficient margin of spare rolling stock to cover when units have to be taken out of service for repair, which sometimes leads to drastic reductions in capacity on some services? Will he see whether improvements can be made in maintenance in the West Anglia division to ensure that sufficient rolling stock is always available?

Mr. Freeman: Yes, I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I shall certainly pursue his point with British Rail. With the franchising of British Rail services, we expect a vigorous leasing market for investment in new rolling stock to develop naturally, which will permit private sector franchises and those who provide and run rail freight services to place orders and, with the assistance of the City of London, to lease rolling stock in the same way as ships, vessels, trucks, taxis and buses are leased.

Tyneside Metro

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed with the chairman of the Tyne and Wear public transport authority the extension of the Tyneside metro to Sunderland.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I know that Tyne and Wear is considering the feasibility of extending the metro to Sunderland. It has not yet made any formal approach to me.

Mr. Mullin: As the closure of the pits will almost certainly mean the closure of the rail line between Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough because it is heavily dependent on coal, and as the Government urgently need to find some capital projects to get the economy off its knees, would not it make sense, from everybody's point of view, to proceed with the extension of the metro to Sunderland as soon as possible?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman's point is speculative, but every approach that is made by the local authority and operators of services will be carefully considered and assessed in competition with some attractive projects that are being proposed. It may be of some comfort, however, for the hon. Gentleman to know that we give substantial support to such projects. I am delighted, for example, that we are giving substantial support to the Manchester light railway and the South Yorkshire super tram, which are costing about £135 million and £240 million respectively.

Rail Services, Grimsby

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for improving direct rail services between Grimsby and London.

Mr. Freeman: It is for British Rail to bring forward proposals for improving rail services, not for Ministers.

Mr. Mitchell: In the past the Minister has given the impression that he has no powers to stop British Rail closing the service. Now that the North Eastern Transport Users Consultative Committee has put him right on the law and has not only told him that he has the powers, but has asked him to use them to stop the closure of the service, and now that Steer Davis and Gleave, the management consultants employed by Grimsby, have shown that British Rail's financial case for closing the service is almost total rubbish, will the Minister use the powers he has and keep a service that is vital to Grimsby and Cleethorpes?

Mr. Freeman: No. I will not direct British Rail to withdraw its proposals. I do not believe that that is either legally and statutorily appropriate or in the best interest of British Rail's finances. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will meet any potential private sector operator of a through service from Grimsby, through Lincoln and Newark into King's Cross, or any consortium including local authorities that wishes either to subsidise the service or to run it. The reopening of a direct service on that line may be appropriate, but it is for British Rail to deploy its present assets as efficiently as it considers possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Prosecutions

Mr. Dickens: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the guidelines on which a decision to prosecute is based.

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The code for Crown prosecutors is kept under review by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The most recent edition, published in January this year, emphasised the interests of the victim, and gave guidance on racial motivation as an aggravating feature and on the approach to be adopted in cases of mentally disordered persons alleged to have committed offences.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people believe that the Crown prosecution service should be more tightly reviewed? Many people whom one meets in victim support schemes have been victims of a crime, yet never see the people concerned come to court because the Crown prosecution service believes that there will be reasonable doubt for the magistrates or for the jury. On the other hand, other people have to come to court. The cases are adjourned and adjourned again, and they suffer months of sheer agony while they wait for their cases to be called. Sometimes no evidence is submitted to the bench in the end. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House that he will review the system far more tightly, because there is a trial within a trial by the Crown prosecution service?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that the position of the victim is extremely important. The Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear that she recognises that. That said, it is important that the power to prosecute should be exercised independently. There is a powerful system of review within

the service right up to the Director and through the Director to me. I superintend her and I am answerable to the House.

Mr. Fraser: Will the Attorney-General confirm that when, just over a week ago, British Coal gave short notice of redundancy, a criminal offence was committed under section 105 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, and that that was a criminal offence which was counselled and procured by the President of the Board of Trade, as well as being an action that laid the Government open to prosecution by the European Commission for breach of the mass redundancies directive? What guidelines and advice did the Attorney-General give to his Cabinet colleagues about those blatant breaches of employment and European law, or was his opinion not asked for at all?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he will not get an answer to most of his question. However, it is right to say that the matter in principle is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. To expand on the first part of my answser, the hon. Gentleman knows that legal advice given by Law Officers is never disclosed.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that more cases in which the Crown prosecution service has some doubt in its mind about whether there is a likely success of prosecution would come to court if the whole process of getting cases into court were speeded up?

The Attorney-General: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The working group on pre-trial issues, in which the Crown prosecution service has played a leading part, has produced some very constructive proposals to achieve the speeding up for which my hon. Friend rightly calls.

Fraud

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what new proposals he has to reduce crimes of fraud.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Serious Fraud Office welcomes the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill to give the courts of England and Wales a wider jurisdiction over international fraud. It will also give its full support to the new machinery to strengthen co-operation between supervisors and other relevant authorities announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Thursday.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Solicitor-General agree that the greatest crime of fraud perpetrated against the British people was the lies and deception used by the Conservative party at the general election? Now that the Government have lost all respect and authority with the Prime Minister at war with his own party, is it not time that the Government went to the country—and went now?

The Solicitor-General: The Government are concerned to prevent fraud and that is why we have introduced the Serious Fraud Office, the fraud investigation group and the Criminal Justice Bill. That is the answer to the question that the hon. Gentleman should have asked.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. and learned Friend seek to simplify the trial procedures in fraud cases which currently make it very difficult to secure


convictions? Many fraud cases collapse after long and expensive trials and that can scarcely be a deterrent to further fraud.

The Solicitor-General: Following the result of the Blue Arrow trial in the summer, the Lord Chancellor announced in July that the Government would publish a consultation paper seeking ways to limit the length of such trials and canvassing solutions as to how that should be achieved. I expect that the paper will be produced shortly. However, we do not just have long trials in fraud cases. There are long trials in child abuse cases and in cases of armed robbery. At a recent seminar held by the Bar which I attended, there was virtual unanimity about the fact that legislation is now required in that area and that that was the only solution.

May Inquiry

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects Sir John May to complete his inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich bombings.

The Attorney-General: So as not to prejudice the trial of the Surrey police officers, Sir John May has decided to adopt a modified procedure in order to complete his inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich bombings in time to report his findings to the Royal Commission on criminal justice of which he is a member. The royal commission is due to report in June 1993.

Mr. Mullin: Is not it the truth that Sir John May's inquiry has been nobbled? Three years have passed since the inquiry was commissioned and he has yet to begin to address the Guildford and Woolwich convictions. Has not his inquiry been nobbled because he was not willing to participate in a whitewash that would preserve the reputations of a number of extremely distinguished people such as the late Lord Havers, Sir Peter Imbert, Mr. Michael Hill QC and others who were involved in achieving those convictions?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that there is any truth in that at all.

Company Fraud

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy on the prosecution of persons involved in company fraud.

The Attorney-General: It is the policy of both the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown prosecution service, acting through its fraud investigation group and specialist prosecutors in each of its areas, to prosecute company fraud, wherever it is detected, in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If Department of Trade and Industry inspectors produce a report indicating actions bordering on fraud or irregularities by prominent Conservatives, surely in those circumstances it is quite improper for the DTI to secure an injunction to prevent Channel 4 from publishing information from those reports in last night's programme "The Greed and the Glory".

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is muddling two concepts. If there is evidence of wrong-doing of that type by anyone, no matter who he or

she may be, it should be properly investigated—in such a case, by the Serious Fraud Office. However, the confidentiality of the reports carried out by the DTI is a matter of public interest which is for the courts to decide if an application for an injunction is made.

Domestic Violence

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Attorney-General what response he intends to make to the report of the national inter-agency working party on domestic violence.

The Solicitor-General: The report's wide-ranging conclusions and recommendations, represent a valuable and constructive contribution to finding more effective ways of tackling domestic violence.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the fact that Kiranjit Ahluwalia, who was subjected to appalling domestic violence and was imprisoned for life, has now been retried and freed? Does he welcome the recent decision of the New Zealand Government to review the laws on provocation so that women, who often retaliate at a later stage after being badly beaten, will have a much better chance of being able to plead manslaughter? Will he also take note of the recent book written by the distinguished woman QC, Helena Kennedy, which points out that the ingrained attitudes of the male-dominated legal profession often lead to women being more severely punished than men for similar crimes?

The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend knows, any change to the substantive law is the responsibility of the Home Secretary, but I understand her concern about the matter. In his answer to my hon. Friend on 23 January this year the Home Secretary acknowledged that concern. He said that he believed that the arguments were finely balanced, that before we rushed into change we should be very sure that the changes did not do more harm than good, and that we did not want to introduce changes that would, in fact, sanction revenge killings.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Know-how Funds

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will consider further increasing know-how fund resources to help with problems in the developing world.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): An important part of our aid programme to developing countries is know-how in the form of training and technical co-operation. We shall continue to treat this form of aid as particularly important.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Foreign Secretary understand that many hon. Members will not be satisfied with his reply, bearing in mind that the fragile democracies and economies of central Europe as well as Commonwealth countries are desperate for assistance from western Europe? Will he assure the House that in any review of the Government's budget the know-how funds for both central and eastern Europe and Commonwealth countries will be guaranteed? Will he tell the Heads of Government from Poland and elsewhere at the summit in London this


week that the United Kingdom will increase its budget this year to assist them in developing, protecting and enhancing their fragile democracies and economies?

Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the British know-how funds in central and eastern Europe have been a marked success. They have succeeded not only because of the substantial sums allotted to them—£36 million last year—but because they are precisely targeted at the aims and objectives of those countries. I am sure that we will discuss this matter at the summit in London on Wednesday. Obviously, I cannot anticipate what funds will be available in the future.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many Conservative Members do not expect the know-how funds or other parts of the aid budget to be cut and will take a serious view of any such cut?

Mr. Hurd: I note my hon. Friend's remarks. But he will not expect me to anticipate the autumn statement.

Africa

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been given to African countries in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Gross bilateral aid flows to Africa were £514 million in 1989; £389 million in 1990; and £521 million in 1991.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that aid to Africa can he good only in developing the enormous resources of that vast and important continent? Is it not essential to ensure that Africa's resources, including food, are developed as a means of discouraging and stopping that appalling carnage and war that have taken place there, causing people to go west and to leave Africa in such large numbers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Aid to Africa will remain a priority for the overseas aid programme. However, economic reform is the key to Africa's sustainable development. In accordance with our aid programme, we are encouraging economic reform in all African countries. The African countries that have taken up reform have prospered more.

Mr. Meacher: Can the Under-Secretary confirm that the Government are planning a 15 per cent. cut in the Overseas Development Administration budget, which amounts to nearly £300 million a year? If so, is that not a denial of common humanity, when there are an unprecedented 40 million people facing death from drought and famine in Africa, who need more help and not less? If the cut is made will it not be the most immoral act yet of a deeply immoral Government, who have already cut the aid budget in half as a share of national income and—perhaps most importantly for this Government—is it not against our interests, when a rising aid budget is the most cost-effective means of increasing demand for Britain's exports, thus creating jobs and growth at home?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I confirm no such thing and I reject the hon. Gentleman's allegations. We have a substantial aid programme for Africa—40 per cent. of all British bilateral aid goes to Africa, which is a higher proportion

than is warranted by its population. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have the fifth largest aid programme in the world. If he had had his way—the increases that he had demanded in all the Departments that he has shadowed—the country would have been bankrupt long ago.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain has done much to assist the African countries with education? Is that not an area in which there is much to be done, and is not this country perhaps the most suited in the world to assist with it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We consider all aspects of a country when deciding what to assist in the aid programme, including education and other aspects, such as economic management, human rights, the rule of law, accountability and transparency of government.

Multilateral Lending Institutions

Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the relief of debt owed by developing countries to multilateral lending institutions.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The multilateral lending institutions do not reschedule debt because to do so would threaten their ability to provide new loans to developing countries.

Mr. Denham: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a result of the policies that he has described, the poverty-stricken countries of sub-Saharan Africa sent back to the International Monetary Fund $2.2 billion more than they received in new loans during the past eight years? Is he also aware that last year the IMF received $400 million more in debt repayments than it paid out in new loans? Does he accept that that is completely unacceptable for poverty-stricken countries, that the policies that he has outlined are not working, and that they are denying poverty-stricken countries the money that they need to recover? Will he pledge the Government to work within the IMF to change the disastrous policies that he has advocated?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. While the multilateral institutions do not reschedule debt, there are opportunities whereby the World bank and the IMF make new loan agreements with concessionary terms, which often help those countries. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his allegation that the developing world paid back more in 1990 than it received in assistance in the form of aid. Under the Trinidad terms, which the hon. Gentleman might well study for his own benefit, aid debt was written off for many countries. Under the accounting procedures that I have explained before to the House, that appears as a write-off, when it is merely a rescheduling and a forgiveness of the debt by the lending country.

Mr. Ottaway: Following my hon. Friend's comments about the Trinidad terms, which were a welcome initiative by the Prime Minister, is there any possibility of extending them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. So far, eight countries have benefited from the Trinidad terms—six are in Africa, and we have been discussing it this afternoon. The Paris Club is meeting this week and there might be two more beneficiaries by the end of the week


—Mali and/or Honduras. My hon. Friend is right to point out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister initiated the terms, which have been of such benefit to the developing world.

Southern Africa

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will increase the level of aid allocated to southern Africa in the current year.

Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to review the level of aid allocated to southern Africa in the current year.

Mr. Hurd: Southern Africa must be a high priority for us, particularly because so many countries there need our support for their economic reform programmes and because we must help them cope with the effects of the grievous drought. So we keep our help to that region continuously under review.

Mr. Bayley: The Conservative party manifesto in April said that next year's aid budget, excluding aid for eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, would reach £1,800 million. Will the 1993–94 aid budget in real terms meet that manifesto promise and will the proportion going to southern Africa be the same as in the current financial year?

Mr. Hurd: As I have said before, I cannot anticipate the results of the public spending review, which is going on now and on which no decisions have so far been taken. We shall continue to have an energetic role in relation to the tragedies in Africa, whether they concern Somalia, dealing with the drought in Zimbabwe, or projects that, for a comparatively modest expenditure, produce enormous benefits to townships in South Africa.

Mr. Burden: Surely the House cannot have too much confidence in such assurances given the Government's track record on overseas aid. It was cut by 27 per cent. in just 11 years so what confidence can we have that the Government will ever reach the agreed target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product devoted to overseas aid? Is it not obscene that the Government should even consider cutting back on overseas aid when a child dies of starvation every 2.4 seconds?

Mr. Hurd: Obviously, the amount that we spend on aid is part of the Government's general public spending programme. That has been so under all Governments. What has happened in the history of this Government is that reductions in the beginning were followed by a substantial expansion, so that in 1991–92 we spent 3 per cent. more in real terms than in the year before. Since 1987–88 the aid programme has risen in real terms—not fallen as the hon. Gentleman suggested—by 8 per cent., which is a substantial increase.

English Heritage

Mr. Robin Corbett: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will make a statement on the future of English Heritage.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): English Heritage has today published its forward strategy for the rest of the 1990s. The strategy sets out 20 key policy objectives. It proposes a new priority programme for restoration of the most important monuments in English Heritage's care and new partnerships for total management of other monuments. Grant resources will be better targeted on areas of greatest need. There will be vigorous private sector fund raising to widen support for key projects. There will be restructuring of the organisation to meet those objectives. Our citizens charter principles will be applied to raise standards of service. Proposals for London, which would redefine relationships between English Heritage and the boroughs, will be the subject of full consultation.
That is a positive, forward-looking strategy which recognises both the opportunities and the constraints which lie ahead. It confirms English Heritage's central role in the protection of our heritage. That role will continue, with my full support.

Mr. Corbett: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but why were the plans drawn up in such total secrecy? Was it a bureaucratic muddle, or does it demonstrate the scale of the shame and neglect that lie behind them? Why were not English Heritage's senior archaeologists and architectural historians consulted? Why was its Historic Buildings and Areas Advisory Committee ignored? Does not the Secretary of State understand that dividing English Heritage's 400-property estate into three arbitrary categories ensures that some sites will be doomed to neglect?
When we are in the depths of a never-ending recession, how does the right hon. Gentleman think that councils, owners and voluntary organisations can raise the money to take over the 200 sites that will be sold off when vital day-to-day services, which are already underfunded, are threatened with more cuts? How can they be expected to pay for the 480 jobs of people with unique skills, which are set to go for starters?
Does he accept that, for more than 100 years, the national responsibility for those sites has been maintained in the public interest, and that they are visited by increasing numbers of people from home and abroad who have a better love of our history than the unsuitable ideological ignoramus who presently chairs English Heritage?
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, under these plans, at the very least public accessibility is threatened, admission charges are to be increased and further work to uncover sites of national and international importance is to be put at risk? Many will see a Government, who have already sold so much of the family silver, now opening the vaults of our national heritage in an outrageous bid to place in private hands a valued heritage that, as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said, gives us our identity as a nation and helps bind us together?

Mr. Brooke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his rhetoric, if not on the underlying sense of his questions.
The document that the chairman of English Heritage announced this morning is essentially a strategy document. There is an immense amount of work to be done at a tactical level, over which there will be widespread consultation with, among others, the advisory committees involved.
The hon. Gentleman said that the properties that fell to English Heritage would be doomed to neglect. The chairman made it clear this morning that approximately 60 sites of major, first-class importance will remain permanently within the hands of English Heritage. English Heritage will expect to continue to maintain a further 100 sites that are of significant importance. At the remaining sites, no charge is made for admission, they have no commercial aspect and no staff are physically present. In due course, English Heritage will discuss those sites with other organisations to see whether, by negotiation, other responsibility could be taken for them.
I particularly resile from the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman when he described the sites as being "sold off". That is not the project's intention—indeed, it would not be within the powers of English Heritage, as the ownership of sites either falls under a form of property law known as guardianship or rests with me as Secretary of State.
Of the 480 jobs to which the hon. Gentleman referred, 380 fall within the direct labour force and 100 relate to the administrative body. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are some workers with unique skills, but some of the direct labour force—I do not mean this unkindly—are engaged in lawnmowing, and it would be wrong to use the phrase "unique skill" with reference to that job.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to refer to the increasing numbers wishing to visit English Heritage sites. In the past seven years, English Heritage has successfully improved public access to the sites and increased the numbers of those who visit them.
I took particular exception to the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman about the new chairman of English Heritage. I did not appoint the new chairman, but I worked with him closely for seven years at the Royal College of Art, initially as the Higher Education Minister and latterly as Member of Parliament for the constituency. Those who work at the Royal College of Art, including—notably—the student body, expressed the greatest regret when he left the Royal College of Art and transferred to his new post.
As I said earlier, public accessibility will be maintained. That will continue to be the case even if another organisation takes responsibility for the site.
There is of course a reference to raised income from admissions, but income can be raised from admissions by increasing the number of people who visit as well as by raising charges.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend constantly uphold Britain's heritage, which is second to none in the world? If we do not do that, future generations will curse us, and they will be right to curse us.
In London, will not English Heritage be rather more reliable than some of the London boroughs?

Mr. Brooke: Of course I endorse everything my hon. Friend has said, not only about the scale of our heritage


but about the commitment to its maintenance on my part and on that of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
The London decision which is foreshadowed in the statement that Mr. Stevens made this morning will be the subject of consultation over a period. Certain local authorities in London are anxious to take over these responsibilities.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State accept that this document has caused the most widespread anxiety among all the bodies in this country concerned about national heritage; and that it outlines a strategy the detailed tactics of which suggest that more than half the properties currently owned by English Heritage will not enjoy the direct attention or involvement of the body statutorily responsible for their care?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further accept that the proposals with respect to dispensing with the direct labour organisation are in direct conflict with the advice of the National Audit Office, which as recently as July pointed to the shortage of skills in areas for which English Heritage has responsibility? Will he ensure that irreversible steps are not taken before the House has an opportunity to debate these matters—for the preservation of our heritage is the right hon. Gentleman's and our first responsibility?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman refers to the proposals as prompting widespread anxiety, but certain aspects of them will secure a welcome—such as, for instance, the concentration of resources that will flow from the redirection that Mr. Stevens has foreshadowed.
Each site will be a special and individual case, and the terms on which responsibility will be transferred will vary in every case and will respond to each case's circumstances. In certain instances, I dare say that management agreements will be considered.
The sites for which English Heritage is responsible have come together over the past decades—I mean this descriptively, not evaluatively—in a miscellaneous manner. I am perfectly aware of other organisations for which I am responsible deciding that it may be the interests of particular owners or controllers of sites. or of institutions, to transfer them into the hands of others who believe that they might be better able to look after their interests. The problem with looking after a rural property in, say Wales, is that that may be better done by those who wish—

Mr. A. J. Beith: English Heritage is not responsible for Wales.

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman is right to exclude my Welsh example. Such a property is much more likely to be looked after well locally than by central control from London.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: May I first say how much many of us welcome my right hon. Friend to his new responsibilities on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box? Most of us will want to study the document in rather more depth and detail than the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has studied his press releases. We will also expect the House to have an opportunity to debate the matter.
There is already great concern in London; English Heritage has performed a most valuable role, and it would

be a great pity if would-be vandal developers thought that they could get away with things without proper monitoring in future. That impression is being given, probably wrongly, but I should be grateful for a robust rebuttal of it by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. He is quite right to say that we shall get a more measured view of these proposals when their detail is looked at. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked about irreversibility. I should add to what I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman that there will be plenty of time during the discussion on the tactics of these strategic moves for sensible debate.
My hon. Friend asked about London. Because it is recognised that the performance by local authorities may be variable, there will be extended consultation to make sure that local authorities will properly be able to take the transferred powers.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I also congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. Does he not understand that his statement will be viewed with anger and dismay by people all over the country, because it fails to grasp that the sites are our national heritage and that responsibility for them should be national—that is to say, with and by the Government?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not further understand that the third category of unstaffed sites, which he apparently considers to be of lesser importance, includes vital sites such as Arbor Low in a national park which are of key importance to our archaeological heritage? If those are privatised and responsibility is divested by the Government and English Heritage, and local authorities are asked to be responsible for them, will he at least make the responsibility statutory, so that local authorities can claim revenue support grant to help them fulfil the responsibilities in which the right hon. Gentleman does not seem interested although many people throughout the country are interested in them?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman speaks about anger and dismay, and was obviously echoing the remarks by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who asked the first question.
When I said that the unstaffed sites were in Mr. Stevens's third category, I was being descriptive in terms of the category. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's kind words, but I stress that English Heritage is not thinking of transferring responsibility only to local authorities. It is looking for local voluntary bodies and bodies of a professional or expert nature. In the case of an archaeological site, there may well be an archaeological body into whose hands the site could be transferred. I repeat that each case will be looked at individually. English Heritage will need to be satisfied about those who will take on the responsibility, and it made it clear in its strategy document that, if it is not so satisfied, it will retain the responsibility.

Mr. John Gorst: As one who attended this morning's launch by Mr. Stevens along with my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to remember that one was left with the clear impression that the proposal is strong on wishful thinking and very weak on the possibility of resources? If no local authority resources are available, will my right hon. Friend's Department make the


necessary expenditure, or will there be a complete wilderness in the B and C category sites for which English Heritage is responsible?

Mr. Brooke: I welcomed my hon. Friend's presence at this morning's press conference. The first question he asked gave rise to a lengthy answer by Mr. Stevens. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)—that the transfers are individual, and English Heritage will need to be satisfied that the body to which it is contemplating a transfer will be properly able to look after it. The issue of resources will obviously arise, but will be part of the decision as to whether the transfer should take place.

Ms. Joyce Quin: Does the Secretary of State accept that, when he speaks vaguely about redirecting and concentrating resources, that is bound to give rise to a great deal of concern in some areas and on some sites which it is felt will lose out? Can he assure me that in my area, the north-east, all sites will be maintained, none will be allowed to fall into disrepair, public access will be maintained at all times and the essential character of the sites will not be changed simply for commercial exploitation?

Mr. Brooke: I am glad that the hon. Lady has asked those questions, although they are obviously rather detailed, about the sites in her area. The object of the exercise is not, in her phrase, "commercial exploitation". Some of the significant body of sites that have come into the hands of English Heritage over the years could more properly and sensibly be looked after by bodies closer to them, rather than being managed from London or one of the regional offices. Local bodies already have an interest in taking over such sites, and are prepared to enter into negotiations with English Heritage for them.

Mr. Paul Channon: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he will agree that the description of Mr. Stevens by the hon. Member for Erdington is ridiculous. Many Conservative Members have the greatest confidence in his stewardship of English Heritage.
Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, regardless of ownership of the sites, the important factor in the policy of English Heritage will be that the sites are properly maintained? Secondly, will he bear in mind the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack)—that there is disquiet among Conservative Members about the listed buildings casework in London, in which English Heritage has a splendid record?

Mr. Brooke: I hope that it has been implicit in all my answers that English Heritage will be concerned, whatever the future of any site, to ensure that it is maintained to the standard that it has so far enjoyed. Secondly, we are contemplating local authorities in Greater London having responsibility for grade 2 buildings, although not for grade 2 star and grade 1 buildings, which are the responsibility of English Heritage around the country.
In that respect, London is coming into line with other parts of the country. Because a number of the London

boroughs will have only sketchy facilities, there will be a prolonged consultation period to ensure that they are ready and prepared to take over that responsibility.

Ms. Glenda Jackson: Could the Secretary of State elaborate a little more on what is meant by "properly caring" for such sites? The Opposition have no argument with local management of sites by local people, but we are concerned because local people may have to provide the funds. Certain sites may lose their natural character by being taken over by the entrepreneurial spirit, or may be closed to the general public because entrance fees will exclude the majority of people for whom these sites are part of their history. Should not the House be concerned if these sites are barred to the generations who wish to admire what has gone before?

Mr. Brooke: I am happy to give the hon. Lady the assurance for which she asks. However, I must remark in passing that she is leading with her chin, in that Keats's house has been in the ownership of Hampstead borough council since 1924 and of Camden council since 1965. It is a matter of great regret to those of us who know the house well that Camden council is denying access to it.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the speculation in the press today that the Avebury site in my constituency will be affected by this morning's announcement? Will he give me an assurance that the unique nature of this immensley valuable prehistoric site will not be adversely affected by the strategy announced today?

Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. Like Stonehenge, Avebury is one of the seven world heritage sites for which English Heritage is responsible, and its care and maintenance of the site will continue in the same way as heretofore.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The Secretary of State will know that we welcome his appointment to this important position. Will he assure the House on a couple of matters? First, he will be aware that the west midlands has many sites that could fall into the category that he has announced will be affected. While we welcome his assurance that these will not be subject to commercial exploitation, in his phrase, he must be aware that, as has been made clear already, the maintenance of those sites is paramount, as is public access to them on terms at least equal to the present ones.
Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman has—as I understood him to say in his statement—the ultimate say on transfer of ownership, can he assure the House that he will not agree to any change of ownership or transfer of responsibility that does not as a minimum guarantee the two requirements to which I have referred? Indeed, could there not be an enhancement, as it were, of responsibilities, especially as some of the sites that are taken over will probably require additional resources in the light of additional responsibilities?

Mr. Brooke: I had the pleasure of being in the west midlands a weekend or so back, when I looked specifically at sites in the ownership of English Heritage and others in private hands. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he is seeking in terms of any decision about change of ownership that might be involved.
I shall give an example at random. Fort Cumberland, one of the forts in the River Solent, is extremely difficult to visit at present, for relatively obvious reasons, Hampshire county council wishes to acquire the fort from English Heritage, and I suspect that access to Fort Cumberland will be increased by such a move.

Mr. James Couchman: I make no apologies for asking about a specific site. Chatham historic dockyard has the greatest concentration of ancient monuments in Europe in one place. Although it is managed by the historic dockyard trust, I would be grateful for my right hon. Friend's reassurance that the input that has come from English Heritage in the refurbishment of the historic dockyard will continue unabated and without any problem.

Mr. Brooke: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has praised what is happening at Chatham dockyard. As he knows, there is an agreed programme, and that programme will be honoured. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Under-Secretary of State, had the pleasure of visiting the dockyard recently.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: When did Jocelyn Stevens advise the Secretary of State of his proposals? Why were documents not available to Members this morning? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that documents are available in the Library this afternoon?
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify his statement that there will be private sector funding and reconcile that with his claim that there will not be any sell-off? Are we to assume from his statement that franchising and leases will be granted to private companies for some of the properties? Will he assure me that none of the properties that are much valued in Essex is proposed for sale or leasing? Finally, will he understand that all 1,400 members of staff have cause for anxiety, not only 300 of them?
I am sure that the members of staff will be as much in the dark as hon. Members about the details of the proposals. Is it not unsatisfactory and unfair for them? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that they and others outside the House will see today's statement as indicative of the Government's decay, their lack of standards and a lack of pride in British heritage?

Mr. Brooke: I am rather diffident about saying to the hon. Gentleman, who I realise is a new Member, that I bring to the job both affection and pride in our heritage. I know that he did not intend to be personally disagreeable, but that was an incidental effect of his remarks.
The easiest response to the hon. Gentleman's question about private funding is to refer to the proposals for Stonehenge, which have been made public. We are planning to build a visitors centre quite some distance from the site. A private developer will be involved with the centre but we shall be working also in conjunction with the National Trust, which owns the land. Basically, we have a

site which draws 1 million people a year. I think that it is the most visited ancient site in Europe. It is important that we ensure that the quality of services available to those who visit it are worthy of them.

Mr. Robert Banks: I add my congratulations to those expressed to my right hon. Friend on his new responsibilities. Does he acknowledge that historic buildings and sites are the cornerstone of this country's tourist industry, and will he ensure that tourist boards and other bodies involved in tourism are widely consulted on the proposed strategy? Does my right hon. Friend believe that, if the review is implemented, overall a larger sum of money will be available for the preservation and maintenance of historic buildings and sites?

Mr. Brooke: I give my hon. Friend an assurance that tourist interests in the heritage, which are very important, will be kept informed and consulted. As to funding, I cannot prejudge any statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a fortnight's time, but the grain of English Heritage's proposals is in line with the contribution that the private sector has made and will continue to make. I should earlier have answered the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) with an assurance that I will make the documents available in the Library.

Mr. Tony Banks: This seems like the country's final closing down sale, when historic monuments are to be transferred to whomsoever they are transferred to. Will the Secretary of State give a firm assurance that, when monuments are transferred to local authorities, they will be given the necessary funds to continue to keep those monuments in the order that we would expect? Will the right hon. Gentleman also undertake that, when sites are transferred, those remaining will not be privatised by English Heritage?

Mr. Brooke: The question of resources for local authorities rests more with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment than with me, but I repeat my earlier assurance that, in its negotiations, English Heritage must be satisfied that those taking on responsibility for sites have the means of looking after them. The hon. Gentleman's point about the privatisation of other sites had the flavour of a rhetorical question. I gave an assurance earlier that the main body of sites, to which English Heritage assigns the first two categories of importance, will essentially remain under English Heritage's control. I repeat that we do not envisage commercial exploitation or the sale of sites.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have a Standing Order No. 20 application to hear, so I ask the hon. Gentleman and others to resume their seats.

Parkside Colliery

Mr. John Evans: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the ending of coal mining on Friday last at Parkside colliery in my constituency and the loss of 800 miners' jobs without any consultation.
The matter is specific, in that, throughout last Wednesday's debate on pit closures, the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Wales repeatedly gave categorical assurances that British Coal had a statutory duty to consult on each of the 10 pits remaining on the closure hit list. In fact, at 9.50 pm that night the Secretary of State for Wales said:
Let me make matters absolutely clear about the 10 pits. British Coal is under a statutory duty to consult on those closures … it must be a genuine consultation. British Coal has given the criteria to show that those pits are currently loss-making and have no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future."—[Official Report, 21 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 526.]
Less than 36 hours later, at 7.15 am on Friday 23 October, the president and secretary of the Parkside branch of the National Union of Mineworkers were called to the colliery deputy manager's office and told that, as from 7 pm that night, all coal production would cease. That was the total extent of the Secretary of State's "genuine consultation."
Parkside miners have been denied any opportunity to prove to the nation that theirs is a profitable colliery with a ready market at Fiddler's Ferry power station, which presumably will now import even more Colombian coal.
The issue is important for two reasons. First, a debate would deal with the veracity and integrity of Ministers who have made statements to the House about colliery closures. Secondly, it would establish whether British Coal is treating Ministers and the House with contempt in shutting collieries without any consultation.
Lastly, the matter is urgent—indeed, very urgent—in that the very fabric of the mine is now threatened. I am advised that the proposed level of care and maintenance at this pit is completely insufficient, with no personnel deployed to protect the faces themselves—one of which, I am told, will deteriorate within the week if coaling is not resumed, owing to floorlift and geological pressure.
It is of the utmost importance, Madam Speaker, that the matter be discussed urgently, so that Parkside colliery, its work force and its millions of tonnes of coal reserves can be protected for the nation.

Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has said. I am instructed to give my decision without stating my reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman to be appropriate for discussion under standing order No. 20, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Martin O'Neill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order concerns a report by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which recommends that emphysema and bronchitis be deemed industrial diseases. Such action would greatly assist the many thousands of miners and former miners who suffer from those wretched illnesses, and who have been seeking compensation from British Coal for many years.
Although the document emanates from the Department of Social Security, it has been reported that a senior civil servant in the Department of Trade and Industry has advised the President of the Board of Trade to delay publishing it, on the grounds that many of the sufferers will die in the interim and that the cost to the Exchequer will therefore be reduced.
Have you, Madam Speaker, received any requests for a statement on this urgent matter? What steps should my right hon. and hon. Friends take when faced with the DTI's blanket refusal to answer questions about leaks, even when the rights of dying men are at stake?

Mr. Eric Clarke: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. If anything motivated me to become a Member of Parliament, it was this. The anomaly introduced by academic and medical argument over whether certain people were suffering from emphysema or bronchitis, from pneumoconiosis or silicosis, has affected every member of the mining fraternity. It is heartrending to ask a miner's widow and dependants to allow a post mortem on the deceased after he has breathed his last, but all of us have had that experience. It may sound melodramatic, but if anything made me bitter, it was that.
Sufferers from those diseases have given their lives to an industry from which we all benefit. It is only right for the anomaly to be dealt with, and I appeal to Ministers to enact such a change immediately. It should not be delayed; if anything, it should be speeded up, and I hope that any payments that became due some time ago will be backdated.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I will, of course, take points of order that relate to the matter that we are discussing, but they must be directed to me, rather than attempting to debate the subject of the report.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Only last week, the President of the Board of Trade apologised to the House for his discourtesy. If it is other than discourtesy, is it not at least very disturbing that we should be left to weigh the value of stray memoranda from the Department of Trade and Industry in order to discover the Government's policy on an issue that is so deeply important to people suffering from distressing chronic illnesses, many of whom have to struggle to breathe?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Over many years, Madam Speaker—especially during the past 10 years—you will have heard my hon. Friends make requests and present Bills on this very subject. You will have heard the Government say that they now intend to look at this matter.
Therefore, it becomes an issue for you, in the sense that, now that you are in the Chair, it seems to me that they are saying that they are treating the House of Commons with contempt, and the proposals that have been put before it. Because of that, it is important that you insist that a statement be made by the Government, either today or tomorrow, on the matter so that we can question the Minister about this stinking, rotten, lousy memorandum.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I intend to respond now to those points of order.
The House has strong feelings on the matter. To deal with it purely factually, I have had no information from the Government that they are seeking to make a statement. However, Ministers are here, and they will have heard the strong feelings expressed about the matter. I could make light of it and say that there are more leaks around these days than there are in my kitchen colander, but it is a very serious matter, and I hope that the Ministers sitting on the Treasury Bench have heard what hon. Members have said.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are given to understand that next week we are to debate the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to enact the so-called Maastricht treaty. Unlike certain members of the Cabinet, you and I have had the benefit, if that is the word, of reading the Maastricht treaty and therefore understand some of its implications.
Title 1 of the Maastricht treaty talks about maintaining something called the "acquis communautaire". It goes on to talk about building on the "acquis communautaire"—a decentralisation measure, I understand: I do not know what it means. I thought that I would try to enlighten myself by finding the biggest English dictionary that I could set hand on. I could not find it there. I understand that "acquis communautaire" comes from the French language.
I want to ask you two questions. If it is in order, is there any precedent whatever for United Kingdom legislation being framed in the French language, and, if so, can you tell us when? Secondly, if it is in order, could it be translated into plain English before next week, so that the whole country can understand it? You yourself will wish to understand what it means because, in the increasingly unlikely event of the treaty passing through the House, you will be required to rule on the meaning of "acquis communautaire". From time to time you will have to say to us, "Lads, it's not on; it's part of the acquis communautaire, so we can't debate it." So you, as well as we, will wish to know in plain English what it means. Can you help us, please?

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Thursday, the Leader of the House said during business questions, at column 570, that the debate on 4 November was expected to be on a substantive motion. There has been a lot of interest in and controversy about what will happen on 4 November. We now understand that there is a possibility that the debate will not be on a substantive motion but on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, when it is unlikely that a Division would be called.
If that is the position—I stress, if that is the position—can you again confirm that it is your wish that such

information should be given, first and foremost, to the House before the media obtain it? I hope that we shall not find that the media state that that is firmly the position without the House having been notified before next Thursday's business questions. I put it to you that the House is being treated with contempt. If the Government are going to do another U-turn, which is quite likely, the House should be the first to know of it.

Madam Speaker: I always take the very firm view that, before going to any of the outside authorities, this House should be the first to know when statements are to be made. The hon. Gentleman and the House understand that. I cannot discuss with the hon. Gentleman what will happen next week—I do not have my crystal ball. If I were to do so, it would be hypothetical. However, I have taken—

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order; I have quite a lot to say.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but he will understand that from my point of view it is hypothetical and that I do not know what the situation will be next week.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) flatters me greatly by saying that he knows that I have read the Maastricht treaty. I am only a quarter of the way through it at the moment; it is not the easiest bedside reading. The House has committed the European Communities (Amendment) Bill to a Committee of the whole House, and it would be quite wrong of me to comment on the proceedings in Committee or to give rulings involving a legal opinion on matters of Community law. I cannot take it any further than that at this stage.

Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 15 July, the President of the Board of Trade failed to explain in his announcement of the privatisation of Parcel Force that it would lose its VAT-exempt status as part of the Post Office. As a result, charges in the newly privatised Parcel Force will rise by 17.5 per cent. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should apologise to the House and come clean about the impact of his policies.

Madam Speaker: Again, I have not had any request from a Minister to make a further statement on the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he could find methods on the Order Paper by which he could make his views known.

Dr. Kim Howells: Further to the application under Standing Order No. 20 made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend questioned the veracity of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Wales in winding up the coal debate. The Secretary of State does not seem to have realised that, as he was making his statement, lorries were entering the pit yard of Taff Merthyr colliery ready to tip hard core down the shafts. Can you call him back to the Chamber to tell us why he did not know that, or, if he did, why he made that statement?

Madam Speaker: I am afraid that the House and hon. Members credit me with more authority than I have. I listened carefully to the application under Standing Order No. 20, and gave a ruling in accordance with our proceedings. I can take it no further at this stage.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, which I hope is of some constitutional significance. The governor of Hong Kong made statements on television this morning that affect the position of hon. Members. He made statements in defence of the Prime Minister and of the Maastricht treaty that went way beyond his responsibilities as governor of Hong Kong. It should be made clear that he must desist from making such statements and must limit himself to his area of responsibility.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the House will understand that my responsibilities do not stretch as far as Hong Kong or television. The hon. Gentleman will know that he can draw this matter to the attention of the Government in an early-day motion. I must leave it to him to do so. He is a wily Member and knows how to set about these things.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A motion appears on page 1632 of today's Order Paper relating to a European Community document that was debated by the members of European Community Standing Committee B last Wednesday.
Has the Leader of the House given you any indication that he intends to seek to increase the number of European Community Standing Committees? The original intention was to create five, but we have only two. A heck of a lot of work is being put on the shoulders of members of the two Committees. There should be more Committees to debate the ever-increasing load of documents, legislation and regulations—I will not call it bumf—that is emanating from Brussels. We need a bit of help on this.

Madam Speaker: I appreciate the amount of work that members of the two Committees do. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of one of the Committees, although he is not raising the matter purely because of the burden that falls on him. The Leader of the House has not raised the matter with me. I suggest that the hon. Member puts a question to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 21 October, reported in Hansard at columns 459–460, the President of the Board of Trade, in response to remarks by Opposition Members about Colombian coal, made critical comments about local authorities purchasing such coal, and then said that he required an open inquiry into the matter.
On 25 October, it was reported in the Observer that the Prime Minister had been in Colombia and had discussed negotiations about the import of Colombian coal. The import of such coal has meant the closure of the pit in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans).
It has also been said that, at the Prime Minister's request, the Home Secretary visited Colombia, not only to discuss the issue of drug trafficking, but to take the opportunity to negotiate on behalf of the Government the early access of Colombian coal to the United Kingdom market. The Prime Minister has intervened personally to—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that points of order are for me to deal with. He is now getting into an argument. What is the point of order with which I as Speaker can deal?

Mr. McCartney: The point of order is that, on 21 October, the House was seriously misled in debate by the President of the Board of Trade. As a result of his ability to misrepresent the position, I ask you to ask him to make an early statement about the Government's negotiations about Colombian coal. The question of those negotiations is important in discovering whether the Government knew months ago of the intention to close a number of pits in the British coalfield.

Madam Speaker: I have had no information at all that any Minister wishes to come to the House to make a further statement on those matters. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to find other methods of raising the matter.

Orders of the Day — Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

VESTING OF ESTATE, AND DEALINGS OF DEBTOR, AFTER SEQUESTRATION (No. I)

`(1) Section 32 of the 1985 Act (Vesting of estate, and dealings of debtor, after sequestration) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) A determination by the sheriff under subsection (2) below—
(a) may be made on the application of the interim trustee or the permanent trustee; or
(b) may be made by the sheriff of his own volition."

(3) In subsection (2), leave out "The sheriff, on the application of the permanent trustee, may" and insert "A determination under this subsection shall".

(4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) A determination by the sheriff under subsection (2) above may be made—
(a) in the circumstances in paragraphs (b) or (c) of subsection (1A) above, when the sequestration is awarded; and
(b) in the circumstances in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (IA) above, at any time thereafter during the period of sequestration.".'—[Mr. Bill Walker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 2—Vesting of estate, and dealings of debtor, after sequestration (No. 2)—

`(1) Section 32 of the 1985 Act (Vesting of estate, and dealings of debtor, after sequestration) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1A) A determination by the sheriff under subsection (2) below—
(a) may be made on the application of the interim trustee or the permanent trustee; or
(b) may be made by the sheriff of his own volition, and
(c) shall be made on the application of a person representing not less than one quarter in value of the creditors."

(3) In subsection (2), leave out "The sheriff, on the application of the permanent trustee; may" and insert "A determination under this subsection shall,".

(4) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) A determination by the sheriff under subsection (2) above may be made—
(a) in the circumstances in paragraphs (b) or (c) of subsection (1A) above, when the sequestration is awarded; and
(b) in the circumstances in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1A) above, at any time thereafter during the period of sequestration.".'.

Mr. Walker: My comments today will be directed largely at new clause 2, so I want to remind the House of what was said in Committee on 9 July. The point at issue

then, although in a slightly different context, was whether a debtor should be required to file details of income and outgoings when lodging his or her petition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) made some extremely helpful and reassuring remarks. He said:
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that there is much to be said in favour of adding details of the debtor's income and outgoings to the information that the debtor must lodge with his petition."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 9 July 1992; c. 291.]
The Minister will be aware that the information required of the debtor under subsection (6A)(a) can be added by regulations. With such a power available, the need to specify the information required in the Bill would be diminished.
I emphasise the importance that the credit industry in the United Kingdom places on those remarks and the comfort that it draws from them. The new clauses are designed to rectify what I see as an operational shortcoming in the existing law. The objective of new clause 2 is straightforward.

Mr. John McAllion: Has the hon. Gentleman tabled the new clause on his own behalf or on behalf of any other organisation? If the latter is the case, should be not bring that to the attention of the House?

Mr. Walker: As is the case in such debates, we all take advice and receive recommendations. We all listen to that advice. Yes, I have received advice and I have never made a secret of that. I have no interest to declare and I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will understand that. My only interest is that I hope that we can include in legislation something that will benefit the debtors and creditors and all those who are interested. If the hon. Gentleman would care to listen to me, he will learn that I intend to quote several contributions that were made in Standing Committee not by Conservative Members, but by Opposition Members.
The object of new clause 2 is quite straightforward. It has proved impracticable under existing law for creditors to seek reasonable contributions from any excess income that the debtor may have. However, the clear intention of section 32 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 is that such a mechanism should exist.
New clause 2 is designed to ensure that section 32 becomes workable and viable. The principle of reasonable contribution from income is agreed on both sides of the House. I draw the attention of the House to comments made in Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). He said:
I think that the hon. Member for Tayside, North wants more detailed information to be provided. A list of assets, liabilities, income and outgoings would show whether someone was genuinely insolvent. We often hear of people who have declared themselves bankrupt yet still drive a Jaguar and have a house in a salubrious part of the city. Something is missing in the inspection process.
I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East will understand that that view is shared across the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said in Committee:
In a way, this is a Tayside, North point. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Tayside, North is not present to hear me support his general approach, because there is concern that sequestrations are sometimes used in circumstances that are not always appropriate.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden also said:


Let us take the case of a person who is properly going through the sequestration process on the basis that he is in receipt of public benefit and nothing else. If that person, happily, is able to get a job with a substantial salary it is clearly right that a reasonable contribution, leaving enough for livelihood, is made available to the creditors. We might quarrel about where the line is drawn, but clearly the principle is correct."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 9 July 1992; c. 293–348.]

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Under the new clause, would not the hon. Gentleman seek immediate involvement of the debtor's income? At present the normal process is to allow a period of two to three months for the sheriff or trustee to take account of the debtor's income and requirements. Why is the hon. Gentleman trying to create a situation in which that period of consultation and negotiation is removed from the debtor?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady is right to some extent. I hope that I have shown in the speeches from which I have quoted that there is concern across the Chamber about the fact that the operational mechanics are suspect. While I do not pretend that anything that I introduce will be legislatively perfect, the intention of the new clause is clear. If the hon. Lady will listen to what I have to say, I shall demonstrate what the intentions are.
There seems to be general agreement that debtors should be required to make some reasonable contribution from their income if they can afford it. To require debtors to disclose not only their assets and liabilities but their income and outgoings when they file their petition will make the process of determining whether they ought reasonably to contribute much more straighforward. That is what the new clause seeks to achieve.
4.30 pm
An important deterrent effect is also likely to arise from such a system of disclosure. It will not surprise anyone to know that I am a great defender of deterrence. Those "non-genuine" debtors who previously would have used sequestration, safe in the knowledge that their income would probably not be scrutinised, will be likely to think again. To put it another way, the mere requirement to disclose income and outgoings is likely to weed out unmeritorious cases. In turn, the measure will have important cost-saving implications because such cases will be less likely to enter the system. I should have thought that that would be of interest to the Government. I am always looking for ways to save taxpayers' money.

Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman deals with an important point. Does he have any idea of the extent—for example, in the past two or three years—of the abuse that he describes?

Mr. Walker: The evidence that I can produce today is based largely on the information that I have received within my constituency. The hon. Gentleman must also face cases in which people say, "Are you aware that So-and-So has gone bankrupt and is still living the life of Riley?" That is the difficulty to which the hon. Member for Garscadden drew attention. We all have such cases. There is a feeling that something is not right, but the matter can be put right. Those people who should not be in that particular category because they have funds and can contribute towards the debt should be made to do so.
I am conscious that the Government are anxious not to place barriers in the way of those in genuine difficulty, for whom sequestration is the only option. None of us is suggesting that we should put barriers in the way of genuine cases. This concern was demonstrated by the significant Government amendments to clause 2(b), which ease the requirements for a debtor's petition. Such a disclosure system as I have described would not constitute a serious barrier. I will explain why.
I have been fortunate to see a copy of a book written by Mr. Jim Gray, who is well known to Opposition Members as he has written to them about the Bill. Mr. Gray is a solicitor, and manager of the Drumchapel money advice centre. He is a prominent member of the money advice industry. The book is entitled, "A Guide to Money Advice in Scotland". I understand that it was published in May or June of this year, although the introduction is dated January 1992. The book is, in effect, a handbook for money advisers.
Before dealing with the main point, I should like to make three important observations on what Mr. Gray has to say. The first relates to credit references bureaux. In Committee I stressed how a person's ability to obtain further credit would be adversely affected by the credit reference record of a sequestration. We had some interesting debates on that aspect. That is of secondary importance to Mr. Gray, but I believe that it is vital. I remind the House briefly of what I said in Committee. If a young man in his late teens or early twenties decided to go into sequestration and later married, he would not get a mortgage—with all the related problems that that could cause. That would not be a good route to travel for a young man with prospects of a good income.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that? He said that someone who had been sequestrated would not get a mortgage if he married. My understanding is that there is a time limit on the person's lack of ability to get credit. I presume that the hon. Gentleman means that he would not get a mortgage within a fixed period.

Mr. Walker: He would not be legally entitled to a mortgage within a fixed period, but after that he would also have difficulty in obtaining credit. Let us not underestimate the importance of one's track record. I am anxious that people should not go into sequestration if they would be well advised not to go down that route. It is not always the best option. I am drawing attention to the weaknesses in the way people have been directed and I do so not out of malice, or in an attempt to prove one side right or wrong, but out of genuine concern.
We have all met constituents and looked into the history of their problems, only to find that they are linked with something which happened some years earlier. It is important that we bear that in mind.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I have no problem with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which I support. It may be appropriate to enhance what he is saying by recalling that a crucial failing of the Bill is that it removes one of the filters which protect people from precisely the problem that he describes. Insolvency petitioners, far from hastening people into personal bankruptcy procedures, stop many people from going down that road because up until that point they have been badly advised. Does he agree that the Government


must take that on board, or they will increase the number of personal sequestrations in Scotland, which is contrary to their stated aim?

Mr. Walker: I have no argument with what the hon. Gentleman says. There is general agreement on both sides of the House that we want to ensure that when the Bill is enacted it will not encourage people who should not go into insolvency to go down that route. People who can afford to pay should make a contribution. More importantly, those people who have prospects of increased earnings in the near future would he well advised not to go down that route.
I am merely drawing attention to the book "A Guide to Money Advice in Scotland".

Mr. Connarty: There is a fixed time after which people are supposed to return to creditworthiness. I understand that it is three years. The hon. Gentleman said that he had been given advice by organisations in the credit industry, which he did not name. My concern—and, I think, that of the House—is that he may be reading into the minutes of the House the idea that credit companies may hold a Secret extended blacklist beyond the statutory three-year period. I should like him to make the House aware whether that is the case.

Mr. Walker: In real life, if I have money and want to lend it, I shall be selective about whom I lend it to. There is nothing sinister about that, and one must recognise it if one want to borrow—whether from a bank, building society or some other organisation which lends money—to buy goods or whatever. I ran department stores before I came to the House. We never made any secret of the fact that we vetted everyone who wanted credit, and there is nothing wrong with that.
The question is whether people who have gone down a certain route were best advised to do so. Sequestration may be the best possible route for many individuals, but the Bill must ensure that the checks and balances are right. What is written in statute does not necessarily mean that an individual can demand credit. One can have credit only if those who are lending are prepared to give it. I see nothing sinister in that.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: It is a bit hypocritical of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that he is looking after the interests of people who have got themselves into debt when the Government had a borrowing rate of 6 per cent. and, before long, people had to pay 16 per cent. You are responsible for about 90 per cent. of the current insolvencies and are now trying to get people out of trouble.

Mr. Walker: I trust, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that you got people into debt and were now trying to get them out of trouble. Part of the problem with our discussion is that the hon. Gentleman is sending dots and I am receiving dashes. That is equally true of almost every discussion about personal problems. It is awfully easy to say that Smith and Bloggs are responsible. In real life, we all enter agreements believing that we can honour our commitments, but sometimes people enter agreements which they would have been well advised not to get into in the first place.
Paragraph 10.6.1 of "A Guide to Money Advice in Scotland", entitled "Advantages", says:
—In most cases, all debts are wiped out after three years.

—The trustee's fee can be paid by the court where there is a small assets sequestration".
Paragraph 10.6.2 goes on to discuss disadvantages and says:
—The trustee has wide ranging powers over the debtor's assets.
—The undischarged bankrupt is disbarred from holding public office.
In most cases, only the trustee's powers will worry debtors".
Later, under the heading "When can the debtor start a new life again?" the author glibly talks about how much credit the bankrupt can obtain. That is misleading people.
My second observation on Mr. Gray's book is that nowhere in the entire chapter on sequestration does he mention advice being sought from the insolvency practitioner. I hope that that answers the point which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) interjected earlier. We spent many hours in the summer listening to descriptions of the value of such advice, yet Mr. Gray's approach seems to be that the decision is for the money adviser alone. That is curious in the light of all that we have heard to date.
My third observation is on a passage in paragraph 10.2 of the book, which says:
Personal bankruptcy has given rise to much debate amongst money advice practitioners. Some have felt that it offers the best solution to intractable cases where creditors are unwilling to accept that the debtor simply cannot afford to pay off even a fraction of the total debt. Others have argued that no-one should be paying off debts for over 3 years—the period of most personal bankruptcies. A few have argued that debtors on income support cannot afford any debt repayments and that in the absence of debt being written off, personal bankruptcy is the only option. Other advisers feel that bankruptcy should not be used as an easy option avoiding the need for the detailed money advice work set out in earlier chapters".
The whole passage is agonised. Money advice workers seem to have many different views on what bankruptcy if for and some, judging by the last sentence, may be using the process just to save themselves work. All in all, it paints a disturbing picture. Those are, however, simply observations—albeit observations that throw further light on our committee hearings.
4.45 pm
My main point is that Mr. Gray's book makes it clear that the key function of all money advice work is to establish the debtor's income and outgoings. For example, paragraph 1.4 lists matters which should be included in the money process, including:
… information gathering … recording and analysis of client's expenditure … preparation of financial statement". Appendix 2 contains a pro forma financial statement to assist the money adviser to establish the client's income and outgoings.
If a debtor has sought money advice, his income and outgoings will already have been established. It would be a simple, cost-effective matter to transfer that information to the document that is to be lodged anyway in the court. A requirement on a debtor to lodge details of income and outgoings with his or her petition would not be onerous because the investigative work would already have been done by the money advice people who are routinely involved in sequestration cases.

Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman intend that that should become a public document?

Mr. Walker: The new clause says that that information should be available to the sheriff at the time of sequestration. It is already available and would therefore add no additional burden of work. However, it would avoid making people go down that route and would have a determined value, which would certainly do something to help the complaints that we get about the chap driving round in his Jaguar, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) drew attention.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The question is that the clause be read a Second time. Mr. Allan Stewart.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he had finished his speech.

Mr. Walker: I was giving way to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). He and I seem to be involved in a dialogue which will, I hope, clarify my points.

Mr. Wilson: I wished to make a specific point. I accept that the record of income and outgoings is already prepared for the money adviser and that it then goes to the sheriff, and I see no great principle involved there, but I am concerned about whether it then becomes, by definition, a public document, as that would intrude on the rights of the individual.

Mr. Walker: I should have thought that that would be unnecessary because the sheriff has that information, so the circumstances would be simplified and improved.
A requirement on a debtor to lodge details of income and outgoings with a petition would not be onerous because the investigative work would already have been done by the money advice people who are routinely involved in sequestrations. I am aware that, in dealing with those matters, I have been re-travelling ground that we covered in Committee. However, I felt that it was essential to do so, particularly now that I am clearer about the Government's general approach to those issues.
On new clause 2, the reality of the position under current law is that the debtor keeps all his income. Simultaneously, all his debt repayments stop. The effect can be dramatic and may seem to the creditor to be unfair.
I have an example which is extreme but makes the point. Let us imagine that, before sequestration, the debtor's income was £1,800 per month and his debt repayments were £1,400 per month, making his net available income £400 per month. After sequestration, the debtor's income would be £1,800 per month, his net debt repayments would be nil and his net available income would be £1,800 per month. Is that fair? From the debtor's point of view it would seem very fair, but it definitely would not seem fair to the creditor. Any objective bystander would say that the debtor should make at least some contribution from his income.
In theory, under section 32 of the Act the debtor can be required to make a contribution, but section 32 has a fundamental defect: it relies on two separate individuals taking two separate decisions to the effect that the debtor's ability to contribute should be considered. The individuals involved are the permanent trustee and the sheriff. The Act seems to give those individuals no guidance as to when and in what way they should make their decisions.
The permanent trustee may apply to the sheriff, but no one can force the trustee to do so. The sheriff can act only if the permanent trustee applies. But if the permanent trustee applies, the sheriff appears to be under no obligation to take action. Any reluctance on the part of the permanent trustee or the sheriff is fatal to the operation of the section.
The credit industry is aware of no case—out of a total of 12,000 sequestrations per annum—in which section 32 has been used. A criticism of the current system frequently made by creditor organisations is that they frequently have no way of triggering the section even if they have relevant facts. They see cases in which any reasonable observer would agree that the debtor should make a contribution, but the creditor organisations have no way of requiring the court to explore the issue.
In the interests of fairness and balance, I believe that creditors should have the right to trigger the section. That is the core of new clause 2. To prevent frivolous applications from being made, I have included a requirement that at least 25 per cent. by value of creditors must agree to the trigger.
The other key element of my new clause is that it should be possible to consider contribution by the debtor from his income at the hearing of the sequestration award. The new clauses, particularly new clause 2, give a balance and make it possible for the sheriff to take action that he may not currently be prepared, willing or able to do. The reluctance to which I have drawn attention creates problems.
I think that the House will accept that the views expressed, some of which I have quoted, show that there is a consensus that we should examine the issue carefully. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister responds he will agree on two matters: first, that the Government could probably save money and, secondly, that the law surrounding sequestration could be tidied up and is currently most unsatisfactory.

Mrs. Ewing: I have listened with care and courtesy to the comments of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), but I must disappoint him and say that he has not persuaded me by his arguments that there is consensus on his new clauses. I believe that the rights of the creditor and the debtor deserve equal attention, but I do not believe that the new clauses address the problems.
I have carefully read the two new clauses and section 32 of the 1985 Act that they seek to amend. It seems that the hon. Gentleman has missed some of the salient points of section 32 and the sheriff's role. I understand that in a sequestration case all property belonging to an individual, apart from those possessions exempted for the purposes of warrant sales, become the trustee's property. In small business cases, any income derived from the business or a substantial bank or building society account also becomes the trustee's property. New clauses 1 and 2, particularly new clause 1, have a more serious impact on ordinary employees who are not likely to receive a high income but would be severely penalised.
Under section 32, the 1985 Act gives the creditor the right, through the trustee, to ask for a contribution. The system is similar to divorce settlement cases where an agreement is eventually reached on aliment. The normal procedure is that, after a few months, when the initial sequestration has been agreed and the person declared bankrupt, everyone can consider the assets, the family's requirements and its income, and reach a sensible


agreement on what proportion of the income should go towards paying off the debt. That seems a sensible approach and one that I should certainly like to see maintained in the legislation, but I suspect that new clause 1 would largely remove it.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman argues the case of the creditors. He has argued the case in principle, but in practice it is impossible to have an immediate assessment of the debtor's needs. I believe that the breathing space is very important. An analysis of the figures shows that very few of the creditors have benefited as a result of sequestration. In 1989, out of 2,344 bankruptcy cases, ordinary creditors received dividends in only four cases. In 1990, out of 4,364 cases, dividends were paid in only 11. The hon. Gentleman's proposals would do nothing to resolve that problem. His new clauses would penalise those people with the least assets and income.
The Minister, like me, is not involved in legal practice, but his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) may be able to advise him. I am worried that the powers contained in the new clauses—

Mr. Connarty: As the hon. Lady has carried out research into who receives the money from the sequestration, will she say how much money goes to those who work in accountancy?

Mrs. Ewing: We dealt with that point at length in Committee. I suspect that the Bill has come before the House due to inadequacies in the previous legislation, and I take some credit for having consistently asked questions for two years to draw attention to that fact.
The sheriff has an important role to play in making decisions about bankruptcies and sequestrations. The proposals of the hon. Member for Tayside, North would seem to impose a new role on the sheriff. If a sheriff were to take an immediate decision at the time of sequestration that a proportion of income should come from the debtor, the sheriff would have to adopt an inquisitorial role. He would not previously have adopted such a role in the cases which came before him, when he would have listened to the applications made and passed a form of judgment.
Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals, the sheriff would have to take on an inquisitorial role and pass a verdict as though he were a judge. That would need a legal amendment and should not be covered by the new clause, which I hope that the Minister will not accept.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), as he did in Committee, has done us a service with his well researched and well considered contribution. He invites the House to reflect on where the balance should lie between the interests of the debtor and those of the creditor. I find myself in the unusual situation of having a great deal of sympathy for the motives of my hon. Friend and of finding a great deal of persuasiveness in the practical arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).
5 pm
There is no doubt that the new clauses raise an important issue. A debtor's estate can comprise not only his or her assets, but also such contributions from that debtor's income as the sheriff may determine under section 32 of the 1985 Act. In making such a determination, the

sheriff must decide what income the debtor needs to meet his basic living expenses and his obligations to his family. Only if the sheriff decides that a debtor has income in excess of that required to meet those needs will he fix an amount to be paid to the permanent trustee for the benefit of creditors. The machinery therefore already exists to ensure that contributions from income can be used to meet the costs of administering the sequestration and to provide a dividend to creditors. However, I accept that that machinery is rarely used at present.
The new clauses focus on the fact that only the permanent trustee may apply to the sheriff for a determination under section 32 of the 1985 Act. They would introduce three principal changes. First, the right to apply for such a determination would be extended to include the interim trustee, the sheriff and, in new clause 2, creditors where at least one quarter in value approve. I accept my hon. Friend's point that he has sought to avoid the possibility of frivolous applications under this formula.
Secondly, an application could be made before the permanent trustee is appointed or elected, including at the time of the award of sequestration itself. Finally, the discretion that the sheriff enjoys as to whether or not to issue a determination is somewhat curtailed in new clause 2.
The right of application under the 1985 Act was deliberately left solely with the permanent trustee because he is the person charged by law with the ingathering of the debtor's estate for the benefit of all creditors. The permanent trustee is the person who is fully armed with all the information relating to the debtor's circumstances which would enable him to judge if an application was likely to succeed or was justified. He would not seek a determination unless there was the prospect of a reasonable contribution from the debtor's earnings which would justify the cost of collection.
It cannot be expected that creditors would have the information to make such an application, nor would it be appropriate for them to do so. Some creditors might be tempted to use such a power anomalously to pursue the debtor, not because they believed it was in the overall best interests of all—unlikely, perhaps, but a risk nevertheless.
It remains the Government's intention to require a debtor to provide information on his income and outgoings when presenting a petition for sequestration. Such information will need to be considered by the interim trustee and the permanent trustee before a full picture of the debtor's financial affairs emerges—sufficient to allow a successful application under section 32. I reassure my hon. Friend on this point, but I agree with the hon. Member for Moray in the sense that I do not believe that it would be workable for a determination to be made at the time of the award of sequestration by the sheriff. Even though information about the debtor's assets and liabilities had been lodged with the petition, it is unlikely that the debtor's full financial circumstances would have been properly investigated at the time sequestration was granted. In particular, the extent of any obligations to the debtor's family may not be readily apparent, so the sheriff would be acting in the dark to some extent.
Nor do I see any compelling reason to muddy the respective roles of the interim trustee and permanent trustee to allow the former to apply. The permanent trustee, with his much fuller knowledge of the debtor's financial affairs, is best placed to deal with such matters. I accept that limited use is made of the powers in section


32 at present. In the past two years or so, only 5 per cent. of debtors made any contribution from their income towards the estate. That is because many debtors are already on a low income or in receipt of state benefit and so are unable to contribute anything.
There may be scope to make greater use of the existing powers in some 10 to 15 per cent. of cases, but I believe that one must continue to rely on the professional judgment of the permanent trustee as to whether it makes sense to pursue a contribution from income, and leave the discretion with the sheriff. We should also bear in mind the fact that creditors already have the option of taking the trustee to court if they feel that he is not acting in their interest.
As so often in the course of our proceedings in the Bill, both sides are agreed on the need to strike a balance between the interests of debtors and creditors, although we have on occasion disagreed as to precisely how to strike that balance. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North has done the House a service by raising these points today, but I must repeat that the basic structure and approach of section 32 is the correct one. Perhaps greater encouragement could be given to its use in future. I hope that, in the light of the practical problems that I have outlined, my hon. Friend will not press his new clause.

Mr. Bill Walker: I accept what my hon. Friend says about section 32. I imagine that these matters will be debated at considerable length in the other place. I do not want to detain the House by talking about what happens in a sheriff's court in other areas on which the sheriff does decide; nor do I wish to force these matters to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

'( ).—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee to advise him on the operation of this Act and on sequestration proceedings in Scotland and in particular—
(a) the availability and geographic spread of advice to those contemplating sequestration;
(b) any procedural barrier to petitioners for sequestration in individual cases where that seems the appropriate course; and
(c) the level of debt and deprivation and the links with the growth in sequestration petitioners.

(2) The committee shall include in its membership persons with experience of debt counselling and welfare rights work in the community.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I rise with some trepidation, having read the reports of the Committee. As usually happens, a great deal of debate there turned out to be superfluous, because the matters in question were debated at such length that the relevant amendments and new clauses were not called—but that's life.
I hope on Third Reading to catch the Chair's eye and to pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides for their work on this Bill—particularly to my own very nocturnal colleagues who kept the debate going. Few could complain that the Bill has not been considered in detail.
I am delighted that my new clause has been selected because, although we have had scrupulous debates on other aspects of the Bill, it gives the House an opportunity

to consider the role of advisory committees. If we do nothing else, we can at least invite the Minister to give some insight into Government thinking on this matter.
I understand that the main provisions of the Bill are to remove the appointment of an insolvency practitioner as trustee in every sequestration, and in some cases to allow a debtor to petition for sequestration. In cases where assets and debts are under £2,000, the accountant in bankruptcy will be appointed as trustee and will apply for an award of summary administration.
Those provisions have caused great concern to advice workers throughout the country. We have all had representations, in my case right up until this afternoon, because at present insolvency practitioners fulfil an essential role in providing detailed professional advice to clients who may or may not be sequestrated. According to information from the citizens advice bureau, that amounted last year to 2,223 clients.
Insolvency practitioners currently provide counselling and home visits to ascertain that sequestration is the only answer. That layer of advice will vanish with the introduction of the Bill, except in cases where there are assets. If I have misunderstood that, perhaps the Minister would offer clarification.
For the first time, clients will be expected to prepare their own petitions. Although amendments to the Bill make matters slightly easier than originally envisaged, clients will still require technical advice to comply with the "apparently insolvent" requirement. As there are only 11 full-time money advice workers in the citizens advice bureau service, many clients will not be able to receive the detailed technical advice that is required to complete the forms.
All those matters are important. The Government have said that a general rule to bankruptcy procedures and a guide for money advisers will be prepared by the accountant in bankruptcy. However, such leaflets will provide only factual advice and general guidance. If that is a misunderstanding, perhaps the Minister will clarify matters.
The Government's proposal may assist in filling the information gap, but the advice gap, which is so important, will remain and, in view of the expert level of advice that is required, bureau advisers will be unable to step into the breach. For many people, the absence of such advice could lead to financial ruin.
The Government have also said that solicitors will be able to provide that service under the advice and assistance legal aid scheme. Insolvency practitioners have said that approximately 40 per cent. of cases referred to them by solicitors do not proceed to sequestration. That suggests at the very least that proper training will be required, and that issue will be pursued as we see how the Bill's provisions are implemented.
Citizens advice bureaux in Scotland are extremely concerned about the number of solicitors available to carry out this legal aid work. For example, Inverness CAB presently has no solicitor firms in its area willing to take referrals from the CAB for legal aid work. That worries people in that part of Scotland, and I am sure that the Government will bear that in mind.
The Scottish Home and Health Department report of June 1990 included a research report on the location and access to solicitors' firms in Scotland. The report posed many crucial questions, such as the opening hours of the offices, whether firms carry out legal aid work and how


many solicitors operating from the offices carry out legal aid work. It is manifest that, in rural Scotland. many people do not have access to a solicitor's office, and that must be a great worry to the House.
In addition, the income of many clients who seek sequestration may be limited. I think that that was mentioned several times in Committee. Such people may be excluded from legal aid advice or may be required to contribute. It seems extremely harsh that a potential bankrupt may be required to meet the cost of his own sequestration.
5.15 pm
The new clause proposes the appointment of an advisory committee to monitor the Bill. I am sure that many organisations in this field agree that it is imperative to address the Bill's impact on the availability and geographical spread of advice. Insolvency practitioners regularly visit clients' homes, which is of great benefit to people in rural areas. In the absence of that service, how will a leaflet fill the gap? Given the potential lack of available solicitors, what advice will the Government offer to rural clients? What will happen to people in such areas who face sequestration?
It is imperative that the level of debt and deprivation and any links with sequestration and the availability of credit be properly researched. If the advisory committee had representatives with experience of debt counselling and welfare rights work in the community, its work would be greatly enhanced. After all, only those who carry out advice work have first-hand knowledge of the trauma of debt on a client, and they can show that, for many people, sequestration is the last step, not the first, in a catalogue of disasters. I am sure that my hon. Friends will elaborate on what I have said, and I look forward to the Minister's considered reply.

Mr. Wilson: The central point of the new clause is the setting up of an advisory committee, a body from which the Government and the Scottish Office could take advice about the workings of the Bill. On this issue of all issues and of all the legislation to emerge from the Scottish Office, there is surely a case for a little humility.
Those who served on the Committee are aware that the legislation is required because, only seven years ago, the Government got the whole thing dramatically wrong when they created a great new tranche of public expenditure, even though that was not their intention. At least they got right the fact that it was a humane measure, which provided an escape hatch for people with multiple debt and no obvious way of extracting themselves from it.
We seek to protect the humane element in the legislation. We want to ensure that it is accessible to those who genuinely need it and that the burden upon the public purse is kept within realistic proportions. If those are the aims of the legislation, the Government should welcome the idea of an advisory committee which will say whether, this time, they are proceeding along the proper lines.
We should put aside the image, beloved by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), of varmints driving around in Jaguars, having kidded on all of society so as to escape from their debts. That is one of those folk tales that persist despite being based on very little objective evidence. I support the idea of an advisory committee.
The aspect of the Bill that causes me most concern, given our debates in Committee, is the prospect that it will

result in more people being led into the insolvency procedures and ending up in sequestration. That would be the reverse of the stated intention behind the Bill. The Bill has been driven far too much by the image of a small number of insolvency practitioners grabbing in fees of over £2,000 per case at an enormous rate.
Although there may have been some abuse of the system—the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and others have rightly drawn attention to it in the past few years—it is not the be-all and end-all of this issue. It would be wrong if, in their new-found determination to nationalise the useful service provided by insolvency practitioners, the Government threw out the baby with the bath water, and, in the end, more people were taken into sequestration.
The statistics are important, although there is a danger that I may go over the ground covered in Committee, so I shall not set them out at any length. A whole layer of the procedure will be excluded. At present, a person goes to a citizens advice bureau or an advice agency when he is up to his neck in problems and wants to know how to get out of them. Contrary to the impression given by the hon. Member for Tayside, North through his readings from the advice given by the Drumchapel money advice centre, it is not the normal procedure for workers in these centres to encourage people into personal sequestration. In my experience, they look at the circumstances, listen to the evidence, warn people specifically about the dangers that undoubtedly exist in personal sequestration and only then direct them towards that course if they think that it is the appropriate action.
Of the people who go to advice centres with money problems, only a small proportion go on to see the insolvency practitioner, and even that filter will work less effectively in future. Once people get to the insolvency practitioner—this element is often overlooked—it is by no means axiomatic that they will go on for personal sequestration. This caricature of the insolvency practitioner as someone who entices people into personal sequestration to get hold of the fees is grotesque and false, as the statistics show.
Of referrals that come to insolvency practitioners from citizens advice bureaux, 15 per cent. do not go to the lengths of personal sequestration. That figure reflects that fact that, by and large, workers in these advice bureaux are highly trained and have done a great deal of sifting through the money advice cases with which they have to deal.
Another fact that is overlooked is that only half of the cases that reach the insolvency practitioners come from advice bureaux. The rest are referrals from solicitors and other sources. At this point, the proportion of cases that the insolvency practitioner does not take to personal sequestration goes shooting up to 40 per cent. In other words, for every ten cases referred by solicitors in Scotland, only six go to personal sequestration.
Just as the relatively low level of referrals from the citizens' advice bureaux that do not go to personal sequestration is a reflection of the relatively high level of training in these places, so that fact that 40 per cent. do not go to sequestration in other cases is a reflection of the fact that many solicitors and others who make these referrals are not trained in money advice work. They send people along to the insolvency practitioner, doubtless with the best intentions, but sometimes entirely inappropriately.
At that point, the insolvency practitioner acts as a crucial filter, not in maximising the number of sequestrations but in keeping them down. It is folly to remove this layer in the procedure that has the proven effect of holding down the number of personal sequestrations. That point was never answered in Committee.
Furthermore, the judgment exercised in citizens advice bureaux in each case is influenced by the fact that workers in them know that there will be a second opinion. The insolvency practitioner will give more professional and expert advice than they can offer. In future, if the insolvency practitioner no longer fills this role—and judging by this Bill, no one else will fill it—the bureaux will not take a chance. They will shove many more people towards the insolvency practitioner, because they will not take the unilateral decision that sequestration is not the best path to go down. As a result, more people will end up in sequestration.
Because I had spoken that day to someone from Pannell, Kerr and Foster, who covers the north of Scotland, I quoted in Committee the example of two cases that had been referred to him. In both cases, this person thought that the advice to go for personal sequestration was ridiculous, wrong and inappropriate. He squared those cases by phoning the creditors and telling them that sequestration was not the right idea because they would get nothing out of it, and because the individuals had no assets, sequestration would result in no gain but substantial expense—£4,000 or more—to the public purse.
Unless the Minister can take this away from the abstract and go down to a human personal level and tell the House what would happen under the new procedure in these cases, there is a major flaw in the plan that he is putting forward. All we heard in Committee from the Minister—I shall be pleased if he can do better tonight—was this:
There is no reason to believe that insolvency practitioners would not retain an interest in personal insolvency."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee: 7 July 1992, c. 130.]
The theory is that, having been stripped of their businesses, the insolvency practitioners, as an act of public philanthropy, will still give advice such as that given in the cases that I quoted. That is a fiction: they will do no such thing. The prospect is that, contrary to the stated aims of the Bill, the number of personal sequestrations will increase as a result of the Bill, unless this central flaw is addressed.
5.30 pm
I am also concerned about the geographical spread of available advice. It is certain that the quality of advice varies dramatically from one part of the country to another—indeed, in some areas no advice will be available. The more rural and remote an area, the less chance there will be of responsible and high-quality advice being available.
In some towns in rural communities, one finds that good-quality advice is available, but in the immediate hinterland, people will be 30, 40 or 50 miles away from a source of advice. At the same time, they cannot be expected to have the same awareness as others of the existence of relevant advice.
It seems that these people will be shipped direct into the hands of an accountant in bankruptcy. They will not find themselves with an insolvency practitioner, who has responsibility to advise them that perhaps they are not going down the right road. Instead, they will find themselves on a conveyor belt towards sequestration.
Given the terms of the Bill, the accountant in bankruptcy is excluded from giving the sort of disinterested advice that would be offered by an insolvency practitioner. Once they are in the clutches of an accountant in bankruptcy, they stay in that position until the procedure has been completed. That is wrong in urban settings, and it is even more wrong in rural settings, where individuals often will not have had the benefit of advice at an earlier stage. That can lead only to more unnecessary sequestrations.
We must at all stages repeat the message that sequestration, for many reasons, is not an easy option. People should be protected from it if that is at all possible. It should not be made a more likely course for them through the diminution of advice at earlier stages. I support the establishment of an advisory committee.
I wish to press the Minister—perhaps this is a fortuitous day on which to do it—on legal aid. We know that the Minister has accepted at least the spirit of our amendment No. 1. This proposed that this measure
will not come into force unless and until provision has been made to extend the legal aid scheme to cover any legal expenses that arise from petitioning the courts for the appointment of an interim trustee under the terms of the relevant section.
I understand, as I have said, that the Minister has accepted the spirit of the amendment. Therefore, legal aid will apply. The increasingly pertinent question is to whom it will apply. In that context, it would be interesting to hear something about the Government's policy on legal aid in Scotland. It is difficult to believe that their policy is divorced from the sentiments expressed by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It seems from an article that appears in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph that he made a speech during the weekend. I am sure that that means, in the case of Lord Mackay, that the speech was made on Saturday.
We are told:
Lord Mackay's proposals that means-testing for civil legal aid should be brought more into line with means-testing for other benefits"—
that is an interesting concept—
could make it harder for many with families to obtain such aid. Under the proposals, those who remain eligible for legal aid can expect to be required to pay higher contributions in both criminal and civil cases.
There is a reference to the granting of
quality-controlled franchises to carry out legal aid work.
It is suggested that such a course would favour larger firms. Once again, the geographical spread is highly pertinent, because the franchieses of legal aid are the large legal practices in towns and cities. There is not much joy in that for the more peripheral areas.
I recognise that what Lord Mackay said applies to England and Wales and not directly to Scotland. There are, however, two conflicting concepts. First, the Government come forward with a concession under the Bill, which ostensibly extends legal aid to the processes that will arise as a result of its provisions. At the same time, the senior Law Officer in England and Wales is giving notice that the entire legal aid scheme will be subject to shocking cuts and means-testing.
I find that circle hard to square. Ministers have an opportunity this evening to clarify whether legal aid, which will be available under bankruptcy procedures in Scotland, and by extension in all other civil procedures in Scotland, will be subject to the sort of restrictions of which Lord Mackay was speaking in England and Wales. It is an extremely important piece of information. It is unfortunate that we must extrapolate it in the terms of a statement made in respect of England and Wales. However, we would prefer to have answers sooner rather than later.
If legal aid is to be means-tested and is to be harder to obtain for many people with families, we are entitled to ask what additional problems will be created for those who need to seek legal aid under sequestration processes. This consideration applies throughout civil actions, but it clearly applies in the procedures that we are discussing. Ministers are presented with a golden opportunity immediately after the weekend during which Lord Mackay spoke. The Bill is closely related to legal procedures, and includes specific reference to legal aid. I hope that a Minister will tell us—Ministers must know this—what the Government's proposals are for legal aid in Scotland.
I strongly support the proposal to establish an advisory committee. The Government got it wrong in 1985, and we are here as a result. There is a strong prima facie case for supposing that they have got it wrong again. Indeed, it seems that they will create more personal sequestrations rather than fewer. They will do that in the public sector, and it seems—I did not hear anything in Committee to contradict this—that this will be at more rather than less expense to the public purse. In all humility, the Government should establish an advisory committee so that they may find out rather sooner this time where they have got it wrong.

Mr. Wallace: I too, would welcome the creation of an advisory committee. I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), particularly those in his concluding remarks. As he said, the Bill is before us because the Government failed to get things right when they introduced what became the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. There are signs of omissions and flaws in the Bill that will make it necessary for us to return to these issues sooner rather than later. Apart from the general approach of an advisory committee advising the Secretary of State on the operation of this measure when it is enacted, it would be involved with the very issues that have given rise for concern.
I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, so I feel somewhat estranged from those who became more and more familiar with it as they sat into the early hours of the morning. I read some of the reports of the Committee's proceedings, and I have the greatest admiration for the sterling work done by its members. I am greatly relieved that I was not a member of it.
Once again, I declare an interest. I am the parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, which has more than a passing interest in the Bill. I should add that the views that I express are my own.
The proposed advisory committee would deal with the availability and geographical spread of advice to those contemplating sequestration. I recall that the matter was raised in the deliberations of the Scottish Grand

Committee and subsequently on Second Reading. It is obviously of importance to me as a Member who represents a Scottish constituency.
From a report of proceedings in Committee, I notice that the Minister, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), sought to give assurances. I refer especially to columns 150 and 151. For example, the hon. Gentleman said:
I entirely accept the point about geographical coverage, which has been made by many hon. Members. I also accept that in establishing market testing, we must secure a quality service … I entirely accept what has been said about proper geographic coverage".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 7 July 1992; c. 150–51.]
I have no doubt from previous debates that the Minister got the point, but I am unclear about a Government guarantee of the adequate delivery of a quality service in diverse and scattered parts of Scotland.
A letter that I received from the manager of the citizens advice bureau in Lerwick touches on the point about advice raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North:
If the applicant requires counselling prior to signing a trust deed, this can no longer be undertaken by the nominated Insolvency Practitioner nor by the Accountant in Bankruptcy. The applicant will need to find a solicitor who is qualified to provide this, and we already have problems in the islands due to conflict of interest. The applicant may be entitled to legal aid to pay for this counselling session. However, many of the people who have gone through the Shetland office have an income which would take them outside the legal aid scheme but are still insolvent. Would any solicitor take on a client for counselling knowing that their bill may join the other creditors listed in the Trust Deed?
Conflict of interest is an important issue in a small community served by a relatively low number of professionals, particularly solicitors. It is almost inevitable that the debtor seeking advice will see a solicitor who is acting for one or more of the creditors who are trying to exert pressure on that debtor. That makes it almost impossible for the solicitor to give impartial advice.
Earlier debates touched on the quality of advice given by outside practitioners coming to the isles, without which many people would be lost. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North pointed out that, while there will be cases in which, for good social reasons, insolvency practitioners will be prepared to offer advice, it must be remembered that ultimately they are commercial, professional businesses—not charities—and will not provide a service for which they will get little or no remuneration. We may witness—not just in rural Scotland—the loss of professionals who have built up expertise in giving advice that often results in the avoidance of sequestration.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred to a particular book offering money advice. He cited the case of the young person about to marry, who would discover in later years the consequences of having gone down the path to sequestration. If an important source of advice is denied to such a young person, it is more likely that he will follow the course that the hon. Member for Tayside, North counselled against. The sequestration process could be to the detriment of many individuals, and would incur greater public cost—because every additional personal sequestration involves added expense.
As to a charge being made on the debtor for the original petition to the court, in Committee the Under-Secretary of State said:


I do not believe that court fees for the processing of petitions by debtors for their own sequestration should be waived as a general rule … Court fees can be met under the advice by way of representation scheme. I believe that it is appropriate that assistance to debtor petitions should come from that source."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 9 July 1992, c. 292.]
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said that the Government accepted the spirit of amendment No. 1, which sought to give legislative force to that intent. I would prefer an explanation on the record of the extent to which people will qualify for legal aid. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North did the House a service by voicing the considerable doubts that hang over the future of legal aid after the Lord Chancellor's comments at the weekend.
5.45 pm
The suspicion must be that anything not enshrined in legislation can always be taken away without legislation. We need something more tangible than an expression of good will. I do not challenge or question the Minister's good intentions, but they do not bind his successors. We want a guarantee that people already confronting sequestration will not be discouraged—and thus suffer further misery and the problems of continual indebtedness—because they could not afford to petition for their own sequestration.
I am sure that the advisory committee would be well justified in examining the costs created by the Bill. The driving force behind the legislation is a desire to cut costs. The original legislation led to an escalation of costs, but those projected in the explanatory memorandum when the Bill first came before the House revealed an exceptionally dramatic rise, which all of us found it difficult to comprehend. It allowed for one Scot in 10 to be bankrupt by 1996. Perhaps that is more likely than it was, as a result of the Government's economic policies.

Mr. Wilson: That is even more likely now, in October, than it was in July.

Mr. Wallace: Such a prospect gives no joy to anyone, because it suggests that the Government forecast an increase in the misery caused by personal sequestration.
I noted also exchanges involving the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who might have been relieved from attending these proceedings but who nevertheless has nobly been in his place to hear these debates. In exchanges with the Minister on 14 July, figures were produced that raised a number of eyebrows and placed in doubt the realism of Government costings.
There was a suggestion, for example, that an allowance of £5.13 be payable for the senior supervision of cases which, by their nature, must endure for three years. Even in the event of zero inflation—which is no longer Government policy—it is hard to believe that costs could be contained to £5.13 for senior supervision.
The sum of £10 is allowed for travel expenses. I do not know anyone who can manage to travel to my constituency for £10—but if they can, perhaps they will please tell me, and the tourism industry, how they do it.

Mr. Wilson: And the Fees Office.

Mr. Wallace: I would do anything to cut Government expenditure. I appreciate that the figure will be an average,

and that constituencies such as mine will increase the average. The proposed figure, however, seems very unrealistic.
We have been given to believe that the accountant in bankruptcy's department will spend a total of one and a half hours compiling a statement based on the applicant's background and history. That, too, strikes me as inadequate, in comparison with the volume of work currently involved at the outset of personal sequestration procedures.
To describe the projected figures as optimistic is probably a gross understatement. As they form the basis of the Government's claim, I feel that the Minister should try to justify the figures more than he has done so far, and that he should tell us whether they have been subject to any review since July. If he fails to do that, he will have provided the most compelling case so far for the establishment of an advisory committee.

Mr. McAllion: I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee, and I note that eight of the 14 hon. Members now present—most of them, indeed—served on it with me.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has reminded me, Report stage gives hon. Members excluded from the Standing Committee an opportunity to debate a Bill. In view of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that you should report to Madam Speaker that something has gone wrong with our procedures. Of the three English Members who served on the Committee, only the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) is present—and that is only because, as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, he has to be present.
The other two, who were present throughout the Committee stage, show no interest in being present tonight. I can only assume that that is because they do not expect any Divisions to take place and their only interest in the Bill is in exercising their votes to ensure that the Tory majority is made to tell at every stage. If you report to Madam Speaker about the breakdown in procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps you will recommend her to approach the Government with a simple solution—the setting up of a Scottish Parliament—which would enable Bills of this kind to be handled properly and efficiently.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). The key question is how we are to preserve the humane side of the existing arrangements for sequestration and bankruptcy—the side which allows the poorest members of society to retain sequestration as a way of finding their way out of debt. My hon. Friend is right: the Bill has nothing to do with fat cats who are ripping off the public purse. I for one am all in favour of cracking down on fat cats—especially those who support the Tory party—but I am not in favour of cracking down on anyone at the expense of the poorest sector of the population, and I fear that unless the Bill is improved, that is what it will do.
The Government should listen carefully to what I am saying. After all, their responsibility is not just to ensure that the legislation is adequate. They instigated the level of debt which now exists throughout Scotland and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom: the policies of the three Governments led by Lady Thatcher in the 1980s created


the massive debt problems which now affect so many people. The Minister shakes his head; let me remind him of some local instances.
I am informed by the Dundee money advice project that it deals with between 40 and 50 cases a week of individuals and families with serious debt problems—which suggests that the project must handle some 1,200 serious debt cases in a year. Its members believe that that is only the tip of the iceberg. They believe that, for every person who appeals to them for help, a further 10 outside in the community never approach them. They estimate that, in Dundee alone, there are 12,000 cases of indebtedness—12,000 people who have nowhere to turn, and do not know how to get out of debt.
This is not simply a Dundee problem; it exists throughout Scotland. In Committee, I reminded the Minister of a report produced by the National Consumers Council, which stated that, at the end of the 1980s, the level of debt—excluding mortgages and fuel bills—stood at £43,000 million, compared with £11,000 million in 1980. In the course of Lady Thatcher's three Parliaments, indebtedness had increased almost fourfold. Anyone who claims that such statistics are not clearly the Government's responsibility is not living in the real world.
The Minister may say that there is no connection between Tory Administrations and the level of debt, but I remember the recession of 1979–81. It was not unlike the present recession: a massively overvalued exchange rate ripped the heart out of British industry, and threw millions on to the dole. The Government's response was to create a boom, in which banks and building societies were deregulated and allowed to lend to anyone they wanted. In 1987 and 1988, the Government introduced tax-cutting Budgets, leading people to believe that the good times would never end and that they could continue to spend, spend, spend—thus becoming deeper and deeper in debt. It was suggested that, at the end of the day, they would be able to find money from somewhere to dig themselves out.
People certainly got into debt, but they did so as a direct result of the Government's policies. The Government therefore have a clear responsibility to ensure that assistance is offered to those whom they led into that debt. The Bill, however, will remove the option of bankrupty, for the simple reason that it is costing the Government too much. The story is clearly told by the statistics relating to individual sequestrations in Scotland. In 1987, there were only 808; by 1991, the figure had risen to 7,665. At a cost of £2,000 a time, that imposed a burden on the public purse which the Government were not prepared to tolerate. The Government have introduced the Bill not to improve the administration of bankruptcies in Scotland, but simply to reduce the cost to their own purse.
It is therefore all the more important for the new clause to be accepted. At least it would give poor peolple the possibility of an escape route. The Minister has told us repeatedly that the legislation would not deter people from using bankruptcy and sequestration, but he does not know that that is the case—he merely hopes that it is. What will happen if it is not? The Minister will not even know, unless he accepts the proposal that a committee be set up to monitor the operation of the Act and to report to the Secretary of State on its impact on ordinary people. That would allow the Secretary of State to take action. I am especially concerned about the availability of advice to those in debt, as opposed to the "geographical spread of advice" across Scotland.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) referred to "debtors' right to advice". The Minister replied:
there is no such right. People receive advice, but they do not receive it because Parliament has voted funds for that purpose. Parliament has voted funds for insolvency practitioners to undertake sequestration procedures, not to give advice."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 7 July 1992; c. 149.]
The Minister saw a clear distinction between the role of insolvency practitioners who implement sequestration proceedings and the role of giving advice to those in debt. There is no clear distinction between those two roles in the real world. Somebody who goes for advice to the Dundee money advice project on how to cope with his or her problem may obtain advice from that project, but it will not be the skilled advice that is required in sequestration cases. The Dundee money advice project depends upon its link with insolvency practitioners, based in Edinburgh, to give it advice that it can pass on to the poor debtor. If the Minister breaks the link between insolvency practitioners and money advice projects, those projects will be less able to give accurate and useful advice to people who urgently require it.
6 pm
I raised in Committee with the Minister the problem of the change in the fees paid to insolvency practitioners. At the moment they receive £2,000 a case. The Minister said in Committee, at column 150, that that sum was to be reduced to £400—a massive difference. The insolvency practitioners who work in Dundee are based in Edinburgh. What commercial incentive will there be for them to carry on operating in the Dundee area when the commercial return for so doing is to be reduced by 80 per cent.? If the Bill is passed, I fear that insolvency practitioners will be forced, by market conditions, to turn their back on areas such as Dundee and to concentrate on cases that arise in the Edinburgh area.
When I pressed the Minister on this point he did not give a clear answer. He said:
The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point … there should be detailed discussions between the accountant in bankruptcy, the Scottish Office and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland about detailed costs of work in different circumstances. That should be the next part of the process. Circumstances will, of course, vary."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 7 July 1992; c. 150.]
The Minister therefore said that he did know what the arrangements would be in the circumstances that I have just described. We shall have to wait until the next stage of the procedure before we find out what arrangements will be made for people who find themselves in this position.
The Minister is asking the House to accept a pig in a poke. He promises that things will be all right, but when we ask him to explain why they will be all right he cannot do so. All he says is that there will be discussions with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and the accountant in bankruptcy and that he hopes that something will come out of them. Unless the Minister changes his mind and accepts the new clause, the Bill ought not to be passed. The new clause is particularly important on account of the geographical spread of insolvency practitioners and advice throughout the country.
The Minister referred frequently in Committee to the fact that the Government already fund money advice projects, either through the urban aid project or through local authorities. However, given what has happened since


the general election, we know that the Government intend to crack down on public expenditure, and to crack down far more than they have done during the last 13 years. Therefore, I do not think it likely that there will be local authority money to support money advice projects. If the Government continue in office, all that is certain is that public expenditure cuts will continue. If that happens, money advice projects will be put at risk. They will be the first in the firing line. Consequently, no advice whatever will be available for people who find themselves in debt.
If expert advice is to be available for people with multiple debt problems, there must be a network of insolvency practitioners throughout Scotland who are able to provide advice and support to money advice projects. The only way of ensuring that that happens—the Minister referred to his proposal for market testing the system—is to provide a commercial return for the insolvency practitioners. The Bill does not provide such a return for them. That is all the more reason why new clause 3 should be supported.
The Lord Chancellor has suggested that civil legal aid in England and Wales should be means-tested. In effect, that means that legal aid will be cut. Scotland is treated differently from England and Wales, but Scotland first had the poll tax and it was only a matter of time before it spread to England and Wales. Although water privatisation was intended only for England and Wales, it will soon spread to Scotland.
The legal aid cuts proposed for England and Wales will, I fear, find their way north of the border. Access to legal aid, which would allow individual debtors to exercise their rights under this legislation through the courts, will then be cut off. Between 1987–88 and 1992–93 grants to the legal aid fund in Scotland increased from £45 million to £77 million. Costs are soaring well above what the Government are prepared to tolerate. As with every other aspect of public expenditure, the Government will look for every means of bringing down that figure of £77 million. One of the best ways to bring it down is to introduce means testing and cut off the right to legal aid of all kinds of people, including those with multiple debt problems.
The Minister must address the problem of access to legal aid when he replies to the debate. In particular, he must deal with the difference between the announcements made for England and Wales by the Lord Chancellor and what will happen in Scotland. I fear that what England and Wales have today we shall have tomorrow. There will be cuts in legal aid. If that happens, the provisions of the Bill will not work for poor people who find themselves in debt. Therefore, it is more essential than ever that new clause 3 should be accepted.

Mr. Connarty: I support new clause 3. Given the procedure that we went through in Committee, it is very much needed. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), I spent many hours in Committee, many of them on my feet. For the rest of the time I listened to what the Government had to say about a Bill that is a shambles. The civil servants did their best, having consulted Ministers, to correct the problems that had been encountered with the 1985 Act, but the Bill that we considered in Committee was so empty of provisions that it led to 90 amendments being tabled, some of them procedural amendments.
It could be said that the Government had been listening, but they did not listen for seven years between

1985 and 1992. There is therefore a need for a committee to which the Government will be forced by statute to listen to regularly. It could be argued that the Ministers who piloted the Bill through Committee were not involved between 1985 and 1992. It was obvious from the way that they read their briefs during the first few sittings of the Committee that they had not been thinking about the problem. Although their reading improved, the Bill has not been improved sufficiently to satisfy us. That is why those hon. Members who sat on the Committee have come here to speak in the debate. If sufficient thought had been given to the Bill in its original form, so many amendments would not have been needed, and we should not have had to make this point again tonight.
It is still a cheap and patchwork Bill, and even in its present form it is a sad Bill. After having spent so many hours in Committee, I should have preferred to come here to commend the Government on the Bill, but I cannot do so because it still contains major defects. It does nothing about bankruptcy and it does nothing to help people who are seriously in debt and who do not have assets to get out of debt without recourse to the courts.
I shall give an example that I mentioned a number of times in Committee. A couple with debts of £5,000 had realisable assets of £15,000 in a part paid-up house. They came into a cash sum of £5,000, because of redundancy. However, on account of procedures that the Bill has not obviated, they find themselves having to pay out £5,000 to accountants, £6,000 to the accountant in bankruptcy for his fees and £2,000 to lawyers. In other words, they will end up with £2,000 in cash. They ended up with no house, no assets and £2,000. The Bill does nothing to change that.
In Committee, I tabled amendments to tackle the major flaws in debtors' rights, but they were rejected because the Government promised that my points were being taken on board. I see no evidence of that. It is necessary, therefore, to have a committee to oversee the Bill and to show how, again and again, the bankruptcy procedures in Scotland have caused suffering to debtors well outwith their debts and have not allowed them to get out of debt without filling the pockets of accountants and paying substantial fees to the accountant in bankruptcy. It is unfortunate that I cannot support the Government for introducing a good Bill that helps debtors in Scotland.
Two main elements of the Bill will make the tragedies that I have described more likely. The first is what some people see as a major climbdown by the Government—the reinsertion, under proposed new section 1A, of the interim trustee, who need not be the accountant in bankruptcy, in the process of sequestration. In Committee, in response to Members representing rural areas, this was portrayed as a sign that the Government would expect to use such insolvency practitioners in a rural location. It is absurd that the insolvency practitioner will receive travel expenses of £10 for travelling from Leith to far-flung parts of the country. The Government said that they would deal with that, but we should like some assurance that they have done so.
I noted that as I was speaking the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) was nodding in a negative fashion. Perhaps I misinterpreted his comments in Committee, but Opposition Members would like the Government to state clearly that, in the first instance, interim trustees in rural locations will be used rather than leaving it to a case-by-case decision.
Many money advice groups remain unconvinced that the fee proposed by the Government will attract anyone to act as interim trustee in any location. There is a dispute between the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Government about the cost of sequestration, even when there are no assets.
I am sure that my point will be proven: it will be easy to find interim trustees where assets appear to be sufficient to pay their fees and those of the accountants. People who can afford to pay the accountant will be put on the conveyor belt. Debtors whose assets outweigh their debts will remain on that conveyor belt until they are sucked dry by having to pay accountants' fees and the accountant in bankruptcy's fees—the first two charges on their assets—after which, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, there is little left for the creditor. There is nothing in the Bill to change that.
It is little wonder that the public wonder whether the only purpose of the bankruptcy laws in Scotland is to pay money to accountants and to meet the running costs of the accountant in bankruptcy's office. Our bankruptcy laws seem to do little for people who are made bankrupt.
6.15 pm
The second problem with the Bill is created by clause 9, which defines the remuneration of permanent trustees. It is clear that—[Interruption.] I am not sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) is trying to signal to me. The regulations proposed under clause 9 are causing the difference of opinion between the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Government. How much will those who act as trustees be paid? It is argued that the Government are not offering enough to attract people to act as insolvency practitioners. Members of a firm in east Scotland tell me that they are extracting themselves from—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am getting all sorts of signals.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Perhaps I may assist the hon. Gentleman. There is a tenuous link between clause 9 and new clause 3, but it is extremely tenuous. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework and knows the extent of that tenuous link. Otherwise, perhaps we may return to new clause 3.

Mr. Connarty: I do not need to apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I thought, because it is clear that without an advisory Committee the deficiencies in the Bill that I am highlighting will become apparent. We need the advisory committee because of the Bill's deficiencies and because of the problem with remuneration that will arise from clause 9. The regulations proposed under the clause have been a constant cause of friction between the Government and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The Bill is likely to cause the collapse of advice and of the system that allows people who are facing sequestration to go to insolvency practitioners. I hope that the Government will accept my comments as a strong argument for setting up the advisory committee.
The Government must realise that without the advisory committee they are likely to blunder on as they did between 1985 and 1992. I believe that clause 3 will cause a problem with the availability and geographical spread of advice and will erect procedural barriers between petitioners and sequestration. It is clear that the Bill is

about the Government's accounting and financial concerns rather than about the interests of bankrupts in Scotland.
I wish to express some sympathy for the part of the equation that has not received any sympathy so far. I have been critical of accountants, who may have led to the tabling of the amendments that will cause problems for debtors in Scotland, but I have much sympathy for those in accountancy practice who diligently attempt to deal with complicated sequestrations where there are problems with realising assets and other matters.
It is important to have an advisory committee which takes into account the needs of all those people. If we do not take them into account, we shall end up with problems about the availability and geographic spread of advice, as was said in Committee. Accountants will not come forward to do the job, although their fees are probably some balm to their hurt.
Sympathy should also go to the debtors with whom the advisory committee would be most concerned in bankruptcy cases. Debtors will be left with little advice if our predictions about the Bill are justified. They will be left with a new summary administration system under clause 6 and with no marked route to lead them to using that system. It seems that it is also a system that debtors must find money to initiate. I find no clear guidance for the new system. I welcome the sudden attention of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) to the bankruptcy problems of the people of Scotland.
I wish mainly to address Scottish Office Ministers. From my recollection, we were promised that on Report Ministers would clarify how people would get advice, how they would find their way through the maze of their debt problems into the courts and how they would use the new system. We were told that there would be an explanatory leaflet, but I have not seen such a draft. It is a grave concern to the House that we have had no information on paper about how people will be advised if they lose the support of the insolvency practitioners, which I predict will happen if the regulations are introduced under clause 9.
Not by chance but by design, I had a meeting with the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The chair of the board, Christine Davis, who is a constituent of the hon. Member for Stirling, who popped into the Chamber recently, and the chief executive, Mr. Douglas, pointed out that the board was responsible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said, for £77 million of legal aid distribution. They expressed concern about what they had read in the reports of the Committee. Promises were made, although as usual with some caution, by the hon. Member for Eastwood that legal aid would be available for advice—at least the first £90 and perhaps automatically to the upper limit which can be claimed on the signature of a solicitor. Christine Davis and Mr. Douglas expressed concern to me that if that were the case, they would have to be provided with sums more substantial than those they disburse at present.
I join my colleagues in saying that it is difficult to believe that Lord Mackay was speaking only for England and that he was not describing the Government's general policy which would bring about a cut in the availability of legal aid in Scotland, as well as such a cut in England in the near future.
The board also explained that it was cash limited in some areas of administration expenditure. I hope that we


have an advisory committee to consider that point. If the board is cash-limited, it is a matter not just of how much money can be given out in legal aid, but of whether the board has the administration necessary to run the system efficiently. It will have not only the present legal aid distribution, but new legal aid moneys to distribute if solicitors suddenly take on the role of giving advice to people who want to use the new summary procedure under clause 6. I ask the Government to give an assurance, perhaps not an unqualified assurance, that they will not cash limit any part of the legal aid board's additional costs which come from running a proper advice system under the Bill.
My hon. Friends have made the case again and again for the new clause to be accepted. I am pleased that we have the support of members of other Opposition parties. The Government should take on board the fact that we represent 75 per cent. of the opinion of the Scottish people in terms of their choice of representative. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the new clause and will not treat it in an offhand fashion. It is a positive addition to the Bill, and a future Government, although perhaps not of the present Government's colour, will thank the House for it.

Mr. Stewart: It may be for the convenience of the House if I give the Government's response. Opposition Front-Bench Members may then seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on reading the Committee proceedings. That is a considerable feat, and shows that he has taken to his new task with considerable determination.
We have had a useful debate, covering a wide range of points. I assure the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) that, although I do not accept his charge of nodding negatively, I entirely accept his general point, which was also made by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), that the background to the tabling of the new clause is the reasonable desire of hon. Members to ensure that the Bill is monitored and that it does not give rise to problems in practice which we cannot foresee.
I assure hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who has slipped out of the Chamber, that, given the Government's experience with the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, to which the hon. Member for Falkirk, East referred, Ministers have no intention of simply announcing the legislation and then forgetting about it. We shall want to ensure that the Bill meets the objectives set for it at the outset and that it improves the conduct of sequestrations in Scotland, at a lower cost to the taxpayer and with better value for money.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I thank the Minister for accepting the need to monitor the Bill. He will recall that the 1985 Act came under the supervision of the Department of Trade and Industry. Will the supervision and monitoring of this Bill come under the Scottish Office?

Mr. Stewart: I am happy to be in the unusual position of being able to give the hon. Lady a wholly unqualified assurance on that point.
Opposition Members have rightly referred to the experience of outside organisations with an interest in the

subject. I have no doubt that bodies such as the Scottish Consumer Council and Citizens Advice Scotland will monitor closely how the new legislation works from the point of view of debtors, while others with a legitimate interest, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, will check to ensure that the new procedures and the new role for the accountant in bankruptcy provide value for money for the taxpayer.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East was wrong to refer to friction with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. We have found discussions with the institute over the summer to be constructive and positive. Of course organisations that have a genuine interest in the Bill will soon draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, if necessary, to the attention of any hon. Member any problems about how the legislation works in practice.
I will deal with some of the detailed points made by hon. Members when putting the case for the new clause.
I do not believe that it is appropriate to require the accountant in bankruptcy to provide advice to debtors, for the reasons that I have given in previous debates on that issue. I accept the need for the accountant to provide general advice on the procedures and consequences of sequestration. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East asked me specifically when the advice would be published. He will understand that it would be wrong to publish the advice before the Bill has reached the statute book, which would be the normal practice with such matters.
However, I assure the hon. Member for Falkirk, East and the House that officials have already been in contact with the Scottish Consumer Council and Citizens Advice Scotland among others, to discuss how the advice should be taken forward. That is the right route to take.
6.30 pm
With regard to the point about advice given by insolvency practitioners, in only 15 per cent. of cases referred to insolvency practitioners by citizens advice bureaux did they recommend against sequestration.

Mr. Wilson: What did the Minister mean when he used the word "only"?

Mr. Stewart: That means that the recommendation went the other way for the other 85 per cent. I was about to agree with the correct reference of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North to the fact that people often go to insolvency practitioners and are advised against proceeding to sequestration. The figure that I was given for that was 15 per cent.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: I do not want to get too bogged down on this, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wallace: What does 15 per cent. represent in figures?

Mr. Stewart: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman at an early date about that, unless illumination comes to me in the very near future. The advice to which I have referred is important, but it also shows that the information provided by citizens' advice bureaux is often along the right lines.
To give effect to the suggestion of maintaining the role of insolvency practitioners in all cases would require us to maintain the effective status quo that insolvency


practitioners have an effective monopoly in bringing petitions for sequestration. In general, that is not the view taken by members of the Committee.

Mr. Wilson: I hope that I am not about to pre-empt the Minister, who will probably tell me that he was just about to clarify this point. However, he referred to "only" 15 per cent. of cases going to insolvency petitions which do not then go to sequestration. Surely he is honour bound to refer also to the 40 per cent. of cases referred by bodies other than money advice services or bureaux—mainly by solicitors—which do not go to sequestration. Once the figures arrive, I am sure that they will translate into substantial human terms. Even by the Minister's standards, 40 per cent. does not qualify for a description of "only".

Mr. Stewart: I can see that I obviously made a great mistake when I qualified the 15 per cent. with "only". That has delayed the House for several minutes, although I do not believe that it was of particular significance. I naturally accept the figure of 40 per cent. to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I can tell the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that I have suddenly recalled the figure that he requested. It is about 333 cases. That is 15 per cent. of the 2,223 cases referred by citizens advice bureaux to practitioners.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way for the last time?

Mr. Stewart: If it is for the last time, yes.

Mr. Wilson: Well, for the last time on this subject.
Let us get this right, because the point is serious. If 15 per cent. equals 333 cases from the 50 per cent. of cases referred from advice bureaux, 40 per cent. of the 50 per cent. referred by solicitors and others equals about 888 cases. If we add the two together, we are talking about more than 1,200 families a year in Scotland who are saved from sequestration because of the filter of the insolvency practitioner. That is not an insignificant number.

Mr. Stewart: I did not suggest that it was an insignificant figure. I was simply responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Monklands, West about the important role and very often correct advice given by citizens' advice bureaux in the first instance. There is no dispute across the Floor of the House about that.
I must repeat what I said in Committee about this point in general. I do not share the fear that insolvency practitioners will withdraw entirely from that field. They have an important role to play in sequestrations in future. It is for insolvency practitioners to decide whether to continue to provide advice which they provide at present on a voluntary basis. A key point about costs and advice is that the major savings that resulting from the Bill will arise through simplification of the procedures. That point is not in dispute.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East and others asked me about the costs of the accountant in bankruptcy and the negotiations to which I have referred. The costs that I quoted were necessarily averages spread over a large number of cases. The most complex cases will involve more time than others and cost more. I must reassure hon. Members that the Government have the same interest as they have expressed in getting those costs right. We have

no interest in getting our estimates other than correct. That is why we have had discussions with the professional bodies over the summer, and adjustments have been made.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the figures in detail. I can assure hon. Members that the gap in the figures produced by the accountant in bankruptcy and those put forward by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland has substantially narrowed as a result of those negotiations.

Mr. Wallace: I take the Minister's point that it is in the Government's interest to keep costs down. What assumptions have been fed in about the capital start-up costs of the accountant in bankruptcy in terms of computer equipment? Has any assumption been made in the medium term about the fact that many insolvency practitioners and accountancy practices may not now be engaged in training young people in the skills that they would previously have deployed in their insolvency divisions, and that that cost for training may have to fall on the accountant in bankruptcy? What provision or assumptions have been made about that?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman may not have seen the detailed documents that were set before the Committee. There were certainly assumptions about capital costs and training costs. I assure him that they have been subject to the most detailed discussion over the summer among those involved, and they have resulted in the gap between the two sets of figures being substantially narrowed.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and other hon. Members questioned the geographical coverage of sequestrations. I emphasise that the accountant in bankruptcy will have a statutory duty to creditors to ensure that all sequestrations in which he is appointed are carried out properly, wherever the sequestration arises. The Bill also allows him to administer such cases directly or through agents. I have no doubt that, in Orkney and Shetland, it will make good sense to continue to use local practioners to deliver that service when it is cost-effective. Therefore, the means exist to ensure proper coverage across Scotland.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about court fees. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has written to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on that point. The simplest thing would be to let the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland have a copy of that letter.
Hon. Members also asked me about legal aid. I can confirm that debtors petitioning for their own sequestration will be able to apply for legal aid, assistance and representation under the assistance by way of representation scheme.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East asked about the present position. Officials have been involved in detailed discussions with the Scottish Legal Aid Board on the details of these proposals. I am sure that they will extend those discussions to include the Law Society of Scotland.
I was asking about the timing of the changes. It remains our intention that the legal aid arrangements will be in place before the new petition procedures of what is now clause 3 are introduced. That depends, among other things, on the progress of the legislation through Parliament.

Mr. Connarty: I did not hear the Minister mention the cash-limited sums to which the Scottish Legal Aid Board referred in a meeting with me. The cash-limited sums are not necessarily the amounts paid to solicitors. Administration costs are cash-limited. The board expressed genuine anxiety that, if it experienced a large increase in administration as a result of the new demand for legal aid, it would find itself in difficulty because the sums for administration are cash-limited.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will understand my caution in giving a detailed response. Officials are involved in detailed discussions about how the proposals would work in practice. I cannot say anything further.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and others made a general point about legal aid which goes wider than the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, any general changes to legal aid are subject to debate in the House. I could not go further than that this evening.

Mr. Wallace: To some extent, we understand that it may be difficult to go into the detail of what changes will be made to legal aid and the legal advice and assistance scheme. Can the Minister confirm that any changes will be the subject of secondary legislation which will come before the House? Even if he cannot go into detail, can he express with clarity on the record the principles of the changes and what and who will be covered in terms of income range and so on?

Mr. Stewart: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. As I said in Committee, debtors who petition for their own sequestration will be able to apply for legal advice, assistance and representation under the ABWOR scheme. The details still need to be worked out. As I have said, these arrangments will be in place before any change in the petition procedures is introduced.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: There is nothing further that I can add, but I will give way for the last time.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the Minister understands the unsatisfactory conclusion to which his comments bring us. We have the assurance that people will qualify for legal aid, but that is in the context of what would appear to be major changes in the whole legal aid system. Will the Minister convey to the Minister of State, Scottish Office, or whomever is responsible for legal aid, that Scottish Members would like to hear a statement, preferably in the House, and not have to draw secondary conclusions on the basis of a speech made by Lord Mackay of Clashfern?

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that the Minister of State will in any event read these proceedings with the greatest interest and care. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman to some extent by emphasising that eligibility for legal aid is kept under review. Any changes are debated by the House each spring, and any future changes will also be debated by the House.
The essential proposal is that an advisory committee should be set up to keep the legislation under review. I cannot find any precedent for a committee of the nature suggested. As I have said, the outside expert organisations will have every opportunity to monitor the progress of legislation and to inform hon. Members of their views.
However, I take seriously the point about the importance of monitoring which several hon. Members made. Therefore, I can give an assurance that, once we have experienced the operation of the Bill when enacted, we intend to have outside research work undertaken on how the system operates in practice. We envisage that the results of that research will be made available to hon. Members.
I think that hon. Members will accept that the establishment of a committee such as they have suggested is without precedent and not without difficulty. I certainly take seriously the general point about the importance of monitoring the legislation when it is enacted.

Mr. John McFall: It is my pleasure to sum up the debate on new clause 3 for the Opposition. I was not aware that I was to he involved in this Committee until the summer. I asked a senior colleague in my party how to go about the Bill. I suggested that I read the Committee's proceedings, and he said, "Don't do that. That would only mix you up." If I am wayward tonight, it is the result of my assiduity in not taking that advice.
The Minister said that the Government had a vested interest in getting the costs correct. We must remind ourselves that the same Government had that vested interest in getting the costs right in 1985, and got them horribly wrong. Costs have increased from £13,000 in 1986 to £18.5 million in 1991. On historical trends, the costs will increase to £50 million by 1993–94 and to £80 million by 1994–95. The Minister's comments do not give us much assurance that the costs and the procedures will be correct.
Judging from speeches by my colleagues, legal aid seems to be the central issue. I tabled amendments Nos. I and 2, which dealt with legal aid, but Madam Speaker in her wisdom did not accept them. I was told that the Minister accepted them on principle, but his summing up appeared to contradict that.
Opposition Members are still worried about the legal aid scheme. It is obvious that it needs to be restructured before clause 3 comes into force. We are not satisfied with the Minister's comments, because at present legal aid allows advice and assistance free. However, when someone petitions for personal sequestration, he or she will not be able to get a solicitor to do it. In practice, the procedure allowing a debtor to petition for his sequestration will not be simple enough for debtors to use it without legal assistance. Although one welcomes the Minister's undertaking that debtors will be able to apply for legal aid, that is no guarantee that they will receive it. That is the nub of our concern.
Sometimes debtors with no assets have employed income which might make them financially ineligible. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West moved new clause 3, which seeks to establish a committee to advise on the availability of advice to those contemplating sequestration. The main concerns are access and justice.
Justice depends on many factors, but the foundations lie in our laws—the rules and regulations which govern our lives and our relationships with people, organisations and the rest of society. People must have access to knowledge about those laws, independent advice and an assured and effective judicial system. The Minister's comments fall far short of reassuring us on those matters.
Access to justice is denied to many people. There have been many representations—I received a number this afternoon from the Scottish Consumer Council, citizens


advice bureaux of Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland. They feel that access is denied to many and restricted for most, and the legal aid procedures in the Bill could restrict it even more. They realise the complexity of modern law. Reflecting modern society, it is so complex that many people need expert advice. The cost of legal action is rising, and only the extremely rich or the extremely poor can resort to it. The legal aid system has been undermined to such an extent that the voluntary bodies are extremely concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West mentioned the Inverness citizens advice bureau, which was seriously concerned about the decline in the number of lawyers prepared to take on civil legal aid cases.
I have received a communication from the House of Commons Library which shows that, in 1989–90, there were 29,527 applications for civil legal aid, of which only 20,463 were granted. In 1991–92, there were 33,180 applications, with only 23,027 granted. The latter is a 44 per cent. refusal rate.
Is it the case that in Scotland today, only 23,027 poor people in any year have to turn to the courts to enforce civil rights? As the Minister will acknowledge in private, although perhaps not in public, that is not the case.
The costs are extremely high, and the legal aid system is in crisis. The Law Society and voluntary agencies have told us so. New clause 3(2) says:
The committee shall include in its membership persons with experience of debt counselling and welfare rights work in the community.
In Scotland, citizens advice bureaux dealt with almost 300,000 debt-related inquiries last year. An increased burden is falling on an already overstretched voluntary agency. Do the Government intend to provide the voluntary organisations with additional resources, to allow them to expand their role in welfare and counselling? That is another important aspect of our new clause 3.
Unless the procedure can continue to be available at no cost to debtors with few or no assets, they will not use it, and the lifeline thrown to them by the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, will be withdrawn. Remarks were made to Lord Mackay of Clashfern on the legal aid system, which is why we are so pessimistic about its future.
The Minister said that major savings would be made from the simplification of procedures. It was the same story over the poll tax. Hon. Members have had to deal with the results of those simplified procedures every week in their constituency surgeries and mailbags. That phrase sends a shock through us, especially as the Minister said that major savings will be made from the simplified procedures.
While we shall not press the new clause to a vote, we hope that the Bill will not come down on Government heads in the same way that poll tax legislation has done. We hope so for the sake of many poor people in Scotland, who are disadvantaged and cannot have access to justice to ensure that their affairs are carried out properly.

Question put and negatived.

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 29, at end insert—
'(6) For the avoidance of doubt, the Accountant in Bankruptcy may be liable for damages in respect of any loss sustained by any person as a result of any negligent action or omission by the Accountant in Bankruptcy or a member of his staff in the performance of his duties.'.

I acknowledge that a similar amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in Committee, which sought to exclude any question of Crown immunity. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) responded by saying that Crown immunity would not apply. As we are dealing with the somewhat unusual case of someone who is a paid official or servant of the state engaging in professional practice, we think that there should be no doubt as to his liability or that of any member of his staff. We are in a vicarious position as regards members of his staff. Clearly they should he liable in respect of losses sustained by the debtor or creditor.
One can imagine a situation in which a creditor believes that, through some act of negligence, he or she has not received the full payment of a dividend and subsequently maintains that there was negligence when managing to ingather the estate. The accountant in bankruptcy should not he able to slide out of any liability for that, and it is equally important that that applies to those practitioners who undertake work on behalf of the accountant in bankruptcy.
As I understand it, the tender document will include an obligation to indemnify the Crown for the actions of anyone who is contracted to do the work. Given that those who do the work on behalf of the accountant in bankruptcy will have to accept and follow his general and specific directions, the contractor will tend to be put at a disadvantage. If work has been undertaken by an independent contractor and a claim subsequently arises, will the Minister assure us that that claim will be met by the accountant in bankruptcy, and that, if it transpires that the claim was due to a fault by the contractor, liability will then be passed on?

7 pm

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) reminded us, the question of the liability of the accountant in bankruptcy and whether he can he sued for damages arose on a number of occasions during the proceedings on the Bill. The accountant in bankruptcy is and will be answerable to the courts for his actions. As I have previously reassured the House, the accountant may he sued for damages if any loss is sustained by a third party as a consequence of any negligence by the accountant, his staff or his agents. By virtue of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, proceedings may be raised in the courts.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question is that, where an agent acts on behalf of the accountant in bankruptcy, in accordance with the principles of the law of agency, the accountant as principal may be sued, not the agent. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, should damages be awarded against the accountant as a consequence of his agent's negligent act, the accountant may seek to recover the damages as a separate action.

Mr. Tom Clarke: May I ask the Minister a question that I should have asked the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)? Has the Institute of Chartered Accountants expressed a view on that matter?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, the Institute of Chartered Accountants has expressed a view on the matter. It has written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister


of State about the indemnity that we are discussing and about a number of related matters, and a response will be sent to the institute shortly.
I repeat my assurance that the accountant in bankruptcy may, as a separate action, seek to recover damages from the agent if a breach of contract can be shown, but that would be a matter for him. The Government will not seek a blanket indemnity, as was feared by the institute earlier in our proceedings.

Mr. Wallace: I welcome the general tenor of the Minister's reassurances and, in those circumstances, I seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 28 after 'perform' insert 'on his behalf'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18 and 36.

Mr. Stewart: These are purely technical drafting amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

APPOINTMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF INTERIM TRUSTEE

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 4, line 31 leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.

No. 8, in page 4, line 35 after 'administration' insert 'of the sequestration'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 3

PETITIONS FOR SEQUESTRATION

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 6, line 7, at end insert 'of presentation'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 8, leave out '£750' and insert '£1,500'.
The amendment is a concession to a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gascadden (Mr. Dewar). Members of the Standing Committee that debated the Bill will recall that the Committee accepted an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Garscadden to increase the minimum debt level before a creditor could petition for the sequestration of a debtor from £750 to £1,500. During the debate on that amendment, there emerged a general feeling in the Committee that the equivalent minimum debt level before a debtor could petition for sequestration should also be raised to £1,500. I promised to consider the matter further, and this amendment is a direct response to the views expressed by the Committee.
Committee members recognised that there was a need to strike a balance between the interests of debtors and creditors in all aspects of these procedures. Sequestration is a serious process which not only results in penalties on the debtor but can also result in financial loss to the creditors who will have provided money, goods or services in good faith and will now no longer be paid. It is therefore right that there should be some constraint on the levels of

debt involved before sequestration is contemplated, and £1,500 appears to strike the right balance at the present time.
However, as I said to the Committee, it remains the Government's intention to monitor the effect of this provision and to consult more widely on the debt levels once the Bill is enacted. The Bill allows for that figure to be adjusted by regulation in the light of experience, should that prove necessary or desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:: No. 11, in page 6, line 10, at end insert 'of presentation'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 6, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert—
'(i) is apparently insolvent; or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 13.

Mr. Stewart: Members of the Standing Committee will recall that the Government amended the Bill in Committee to allow a debtor to petition for sequestration where he or she was apparently insolvent in terms of section 7 of the 1985 Act. That was felt on both sides of the Committee to be a simpler and more objective test than the original provision. Most debtors seeking access to sequestration would have no difficulty establishing grounds for apparent insolvency.
In the interests of maintaining a balance between the interests of debtor and creditor, it was felt necessary for this purpose to exclude the ground that a debtor had granted a trust deed. Not to have done so would simply have maintained the problem that has given rise to the present situation.
Over the summer, concern has been expressed by the Law Society of Scotland that some debtors might seek to make use of the provision in the 1985 Act which allows apparent insolvency to be constituted by a debtor giving a written notice to his creditors that he has ceased to pay his debts in the ordinary course of business to prevent creditors from undertaking diligence. Such an action would be a form of self-certifying sequestration aimed at avoiding the payment of debts that were legitimately due.
We have therefore concluded that that ground for apparent insolvency should also be excluded as a basis for a debtor presenting their own petition for sequestration. In practice, that is likely to affect only a small number of debtors with trading concerns. The typical consumer debtor—the main worry of hon. Members—would not fall within the terms of section 7(1) (b) of the 1985 Act. Therefore, his or her position will not be affected by the change.
I assure the House that the other grounds on which apparent insolvency can be established will still apply—allowing debtors who genuinely cannot pay creditors to have access to sequestration. That is largely a technical and legal matter, and I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 6, line 19, at end insert—
'and for the purposes of this paragraph a debtor shall not be apparently insolvent by reason only that he has granted a trust deed or that he has given notice to his creditors as mentioned in paragraph (b) of section 7(1) of this Act.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 36, leave out from 'whereby' to the end of line 39 and insert—
'his estate (other than such of his estate as would not, under section 33(1) of this Act, vest in the permanent trustee if his estate were sequestrated) is conveyed to the trustee for the benefit of his creditors generally.'.
Amendment No. 14 adjusts in a minor fashion the definition of "trust deed" in new section 5(4A). Its purpose is simply to clarify the definition. References to sections 31 and 32 of the 1985 Act are removed as those provisions do not actually set out limitations on the property which vests in the permanent trustee, and are not therefore relevant to the definition.
The object of the definition is to ensure that, for a trust deed to be recognised for the purposes of the 1985 Act, it should not convey property of the debtor which is exempt from poinding, or which is held on trust by the debtor for another person. Section 33(1) provides that exemption in the case of sequestrations and the definition, as amended, ensures that the exemption also applies in the case of trust deeds. That was a point mentioned in Committee by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). It means that the debtor's clothes, tools of trade and certain other belongings will be exempt, which was what the hon. Gentleman wanted.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

AWARD OF SEQUESTRATION

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 8, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—

'(4) In this Act 'the date of sequestration' means—

(a) where the petition for sequestration is presented by the debtor, the date on which sequestration is awarded;
(b) where the petition for sequestration is presented by a creditor or a trustee acting under a trust deed—
(i) the date on which the court grants warrant under subsection (2) above to cite the debtor; or
(ii) where more than one such warrant is granted, the date on which the first such warrant is granted.'.
The amendment to the definition of "date of sequestration" has been proposed as a result of comments during the summer received from the Law Society of Scotland. It fears that the definition currently contained in the Bill may give rise to difficulties in relation to conveyancing transactions. A debtor may sell a property after a petition for his sequestration is presented to the court. The purchaser would not necessarily be aware that the petition had been presented and would be purchasing in good faith. However, under the Bill as presently defined, title to the property would transfer to the debtor's estate and vest in the permanent trustee following the granting of the award of sequestration, leaving the third party at a loss.
The definition in the Bill was introduced originally at the suggestion of practitioners to bring the practice in sequestrations into line with that in insolvencies. It also clarified a problem where a court grants two warrants to cite a debtor on different days. At present there is confusion as to which warrant should trigger the date of sequestration.
As a consequence of our discussions with the Law Society, the definition will revert back to that contained in the 1988 Act, subject to a slight amendment to take account of the fact that more than one warrant to cite the debtor may be granted by the court.
I commend this sensible technical amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

CALLING OF STATUTORY MEETING

Mr. Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 8, line 18, leave out from 'below' to 'may' in line 20 and insert
'where the interim trustee is the Accountant in Bankruptcy, the statutory meeting'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 37 to 44, 46 and 49.

Mr. Stewart: The amendments are substantial, not purely technical and it is appropriate for me to explain their purpose as they constitute a response to comments made by hon. Members in Committee.
Amendments Nos. 16, 37, 38 and 46 are drafting amendments which clarify which procedures leading to the statutory meeting of creditors should apply when the accountant in bankruptcy is appointed interim trustee and which apply when someone other than the accountant is appointed interim trustee. The procedures are different and during our discussions in the Committee hon. Members said that there could be understandable confusion as to which rules applied when. The amendments aim to reduce any such confusion in the future and make the legislation easier to operate.
The Government did consider the suggestion made in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the discretion allowed in the Bill to the accountant in bankruptcy to dispense with a statutory meeting should be extended to other interim trustees. During the recess, we discussed that proposal further with the Scottish insolvency practitioners joint liaison committee, which is made up of representatives of the main professional organisations involved in sequestrations.
7.15 pm
There remains considerable concern that widening the discretion to other interim trustees would be a significant reduction in creditor rights, particularly the right to elect a permanent trustee of their choice to administer the sequestration. After all, in most of the sequestrations in which an insolvency practitioner is appointed interim trustee significant assets will be involved, and creditors' interest will be high. There is a strong feeling that dispensing with the statutory meeting can only be justified when the cost would otherwise fall on the taxpayer. We have therefore decided to retain the different procedures allowed in the Bill.
There was, however, a wide measure of support for another suggestion put forward by the Opposition in Committee. The suggestion was that all interim trustees should be allowed to apply for a certificate of summary administration when they are administering cases which fall within the criteria set out in clause 6. When such a


certificate is granted the permanent trustee has a greater discretion as to how the case is conducted and should be able to administer the sequestration at a lower cost.
Accordingly, the Government have brought forward amendments 39, 40 to 44 and 49 which allow both the accountant in bankruptcy and other interim trustees to apply to the court for a certificate of summary administration after the statutory meeting of creditors. The criteria as to which cases qualify remain the same, and the procedures to be followed are similar. Creditors and others retain the right to apply for the withdrawal of a certificate if they feel this is justified.
Overall, while the number of cases which are likely to fall into this category may be small, we believe that the amendments are a useful improvement to the Bill. I commend them as a good example of constructive Committee work. When positive suggestions were proposed by the Opposition, the Government subsequently consulted on them and are now able, with confidence, to commend the amendments to the House.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 9, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) section 25A of this Act shall apply; and'
No. 18, in line 29, leave out from 'estate' to end of line 30.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 6

SUMMARY ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 36 leave out from 'shall' to 'grant' in line 37 and insert
'subject to subsection (8) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider also Government amendments Nos. 20 to 26.

Mr. Stewart: This group of amendments deals with provisions in clause 6, the clause relating to summary administration of sequestrations. I draw attention to amendment No. 21. Hon. Members who served on the Committee may recall that the hon. Member for Garscadden asked why basic household goods should be included when calculating whether the debtor's assets exceeded the £2,000 limit for qualifying for summary administration. In my reply, I explained that the Government were considering tabling an amendment on Report to deal with the matter. Amendment No. 21 is that amendment.
The amendment would exclude from the calculation of a debtor's assets for the purposes of clause 6 those assets which would not vest in the permanent trustee by virtue of section 33(1) of the 1985 Act. These are goods exempted from poinding under section 16 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, or which are held in trust by the debtor for a third party. Such an amendment has been requested by the Scottish Consumer Council and Citizens Advice Scotland, as well as by the hon. Member for Garscadden. I commend it with confidence to the House.
The other amendments in the group are technical and procedural; I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 10, line 3 after 'of' insert '(i)'.

No. 21, in page 10, line 4 at end insert—'or

(ii) any property of his which, under section 33(1) of this Act, does not vest in the permanent trustee.'

No. 22, in page 10, line 4 at end insert—

'( ) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1) above made by—

(a) the Accountant in Bankruptcy; or
(b) an interim trustee who is not the Accountant in Bankruptcy.

a certificate by the Accountant in Bankruptcy or, as the case may be, the interim trustee as to the aggregate amounts of the debtor's liabilities and assets shall be sufficient evidence of such aggregate amounts.'.

No. 23, in page 10, line 7 after '(a)' insert
'in any case where the application for the certificate was made by the Accountant in Bankruptcy,'.
No. 24, in page 10, line 8 after '(b)' insert 'in every case,'.
No. 25, in page 10, leave out lines 32 to 39 and insert—

'(8) The court shall not grant an application as mentioned in subsection (1) above—

(a) in any case where the application is made by the Accountant in Bankruptcy before the sequestration of the debtor's estate has been awarded and the court has previously appointed, or at the same time as it awards sequestration appoints, as interim trustee a person who is not the Accountant in Bankruptcy; or
(b) in any other case—

(i) where a person has been elected as permanent trustee, before the sheriff has confirmed the election of that person as permanent trustee; or
(ii) where no such person has been elected, unless the court at the same time appoints the interim trustee as permanent trustee.'

No. 26, in page 11, line 25 after 'S.' insert—
'Except in the case of an application for the grant of a certificate for the summary administration of the sequestration of the debtor's estate under section 25(2A) of this Act,'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 7

APPOINTMENT OF PERMANENT TRUSTEE

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 11, line 30 leave out '23(4A)'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 8

FEES FOR THE ACCOUNTANT IN BANKRUPTCY

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 12, line 4 after 'fees' insert 'and outlays'.

No. 29, in page 12, line 7 after 'fees' insert 'and outlays'.

No. 30, in page 12, line 12 after 'fees' insert 'or outlays'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 9

REMUNERATION OF PERMANENT TRUSTEE

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 12, line 16 leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 20 and insert
'the petition is presented during the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed'.[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 12

SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 13, line 33 at end insert 'section 1;'.

No. 33, in page 14, line 2 leave out from 'above' to `nothing' in line 3.

No. 34, in page 14, line 4 leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 5.

No. 35, in page 14 leave out lines 7 to 15 and insert 'the petition is presented before such commencement.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Schedule 1

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS OF THE 1985 ACT

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 16, line 6 leave out '(2)(a)' and insert '(3)'.

No. 37, in page 17, line 22 at end insert—
'. Before section 21 there shall be inserted the following section—

'Statutory meeting.
20A. A meeting of creditors called by the interim trustee under section 21 or 21A of this Act shall, in this Act, be referred to as 'the statutory meeting'.'.

No. 38, in page 17, line 23 at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (1) for the words from the beginning to 'statutory meeting')' there shall be substituted the words 'Where the interim trustee is not the Accountant in Bankruptcy he shall call the statutory meeting'.

No. 39, in page 18 leave out lines 1 to 12.

No. 40, in page 18, line 19 at end insert—

'( ) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
'(1) At the statutory meeting, the creditors shall, at the conclusion of the proceedings under section 23(3) of this Act, proceed to the election of the permanent trustee.".

No. 41, in page 18, line 25, leave out `subsection' and insert 'subsections.'.

No. 42, in page 18, line 32, at end insert—
'(3B) Where a report is made in pursuance of subsection (3A) above, the Accountant in Bankruptcy may apply to the sheriff for the grant of a certificate for the summary administration of the sequestration of the debtor's estate.'.

No. 43, in page 18, line 36, at end insert—

'( ) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
'(4A) Where a report is made in pursuance of subsection (4) above, the interim trustee may apply to the sheriff for the grant of a certificate for the summary administration of the sequestration of the debtor's estate.'.

No. 44, in page 18, line 38, leave out from beginning to second 'in' and insert—

(1) Section 25 (confirmation of permanent trustee) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) Where a report is made in pursuance of subsection (1) above, the interim trustee may apply to the sheriff for the grant of a certificate for the summary administration of the sequestration of the debtor's estate.".

No. 46, in page 25, leave out lines 10 to 16 and insert 'for the words 'section 21(1)' there shall be substituted the words 'section 20A'.

No. 47, in page 27, line 43, after '9' insert—

'(a)'.

No. 48, in page 27, line 45, at end insert—
'(b) after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
(1A) Where the offer of composition is approved and the permanent trustee is the Accountant in Bankruptcy, the permanent trustee shall prepare accounts of his intromissions with the debtor's estate and he shall make a determination of his fees and outlays calculated in accordance with regulations made under section 69A of this Act'.;
(c) after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
(3) Subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), and (10) of section 53 of this Act as adapted by paragraph 9(2) and (3) of Schedule 2 to this Act shall apply, subject to any necessary

modifications, in respect of the accounts and determination prepared under sub-paragraph (1A) above as they apply in respect of the accounts and determination prepared under the said section 53 as so adapted.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 2

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 29, line 39, column 3, leave out from '23' to end of line 42 and insert 'subsection (4).'

No. 50, in page 30, column 3, leave out lines 5 and 6.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had full discussions of the Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I pay tribute to the hon. Members on both sides who sat on the Committee, for a long time on some occasions, to consider matters of importance to the people of Scotland. The Bill has been improved as a result of that detailed consideration, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: It is fair to say that the Government can hardly complain about the constructive response from the Opposition this afternoon. Our debate on new clause 3 was especially helpful and many of the issues raised in it will not go away even after the Bill is passed.
It is important to place on the record our concern about the future of legal aid and about the statement by Lord Mackay of Clashfern at the weekend. It would have been helpful if we had known precisely and comprehensively what the Government's thinking on the future of legal aid is. I am sure that I would be supported in that view by the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Consumer Council, the citizens advice bureaux and others.
The Bill has certainly been influenced by the considerable increase in the cost of sequestrations. In 1985, there were only 295 sequestrations in Scotland, but by 1991 the number had risen to 7,665, with all the attendant problems for the Government which they have considered during the deliberations on the Bill.
The Minister mentioned that I had taken the trouble to read most of the Committee proceedings. I found them fascinating, as was the response today in the form of various amendments and new clauses.
I am worried about whether those most affected by the Bill will have much say in its impact. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), in a distinguished contribution, mentioned his link with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. That is of course important, but I wonder whether the people who may be deterred, as many of them may be, from applying for sequestration as a result of the legislation have been consulted.
Have they been asked their views on means testing in England and what that will mean to Scotland? Do they realise that we are considering the closing off of one bankruptcy option which, for many cases of multiple debt, was the only course open to a large number of people? We owe a great debt of gratitude to those organisations which,


as we have seen in the Hansard report of the Committee and as we have heard today, have taken seriously their role in contributing to the legislation. I am sure that the Minister will join the Opposition in thanking all those professional bodies and voluntary groups which gave outstanding assistance and provided research to all hon. Members. Whether they are satisfied with our deliberations is another matter.
During the debate on new clause 3, the Government committed themselves to monitoring. We welcome that. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) even got a concession on clause 14 which may hitherto be known as the Connarty clause. We have made not a little progress, although I do not want to be too extravagant in praising the Bill.
I did not take part in Committee proceedings, in which the Opposition were led by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I was interested in the contributions by new hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, East, for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) and for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire). I am sure that they found the Committee a fascinating learning curve. I vividly remember reading the advice offered by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) who not only quoted in Latin but offered to send advice in Italian. I do not know whether the Committee benefited greatly from that. One of the Government Whips is indicating assent, so somebody must have been grateful for the classical knowledge.
We are obviously very concerned about the problems that led to the introduction of the Bill. We are concerned about multiple debt and about the evidence of poverty in our society which plainly contributed to the need for such a Bill. However, for the reasons given by me and my hon. Friends, we do not oppose Third Reading. We thank those who contributed towards putting the Bill on the statute book. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in thanking the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for his good-humoured and diplomatic contributions to the progress of the Bill.
On numerous occasions the Government have spoken about monitoring. I am sure that the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will not be surprised to find us monitoring the progress of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) reminded the House of our commitment to a Scottish Parliament. Before long this legislation will be reviewed not in London but in Edinburgh, and that is absolutely right in the context of the problems that we face in Scotland.

Mrs. Ewing: Before commenting generally on the Bill, I should like to raise a specific point with the Minister. He will recall that on Tuesday 14 July in the Committee's afternoon session I spoke about the possibility of looking at exempted assets. He undertook to consult ministerial colleagues on the issue of whether personal injury awards as a source of income would be carefully examined for consideration as an exempted asset. The speed of the

legislation may not have enabled the Minister to respond to that issue, but I should like to have some comment on it. I would settle for a letter if the Minister wishes to write to me in greater detail. It is an important issue, which was pressed by me and by other members of the Committee, and it would be a shame to let it go adrift.
I am not sure why the Government suddenly produced this interesting legislation. I repeat my original contention that, as there was a need to look at the laws of diligence as they affected people facing bankruptcy in Scotland, the opportunity should have been taken for a wide-ranging inquiry. That could have taken account of the needs of the debtor and the creditor and looked at examples in other countries. In Committee I gave effective examples of what happens in other countries. The inquiry could have taken evidence from advice centres, the citizens advice bureaux and the legal and insolvency practitioners.
We should have taken the opportunity to discover why so many people in Scotland are affected by the likelihood of bankruptcy. There is little doubt in anyone's mind that it is the result of the credit boom in the 1980s. At that time, credit was encouraged and, as the recession began to bite, people were faced with bankruptcy. The Government produced the Bill in great haste and may have to repent at leisure, because I am not convinced that the legislation is the correct way to address the issues that face us in Scotland.
The Government should have looked at warrant sales in Scotland—that law which still pertains in our country and which affects so many of the poorest sections of our society. Those people have no assets and no money and cannot possibly meet the debts into which they have been pushed. We have missed a great opportunity. I am not convinced that the Government have fully assessed the costs or the implications of the legislation. We have not yet been afforded the full details of the legal aid costs that will be involved. If more time had been taken before the Bill was printed, we could have resolved some of the details in advance and made the legislation much more effective.
Like the official Opposition, we shall not oppose Third Reading, but I give due warning that I shall carefully monitor the Bill's progress in the same way as I monitored the effects of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. I suspect that the issue will again be debated on many future occasions.

Mr. Connarty: I join the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in expressing regret at the fact that no opportunity was taken to look seriously at the problem caused by warrant sales in bankruptcy cases. The Government will regret that, because their reputations will not be enhanced in Scotland or elsewhere as they continue to use a greatly outmoded system of diligence.
I regret the final form of the Bill. I compliment the civil servants who adeptly sieved the submissions from people who perhaps could not see the target for the Government's smoke. A Special Standing Committee would have been able to take evidence in the way in which it was meant to be submitted, rather than in the way in which Government procedures allowed it to be submitted.
The Bill's main omission is that the House made no attempt to change the way of looking at debt and debtors. A reading of the Bill and the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 clearly shows that they are founded on Acts drawn up centuries ago. The legislation is penal. It sees debtors as


bad people who should be dealt with by way of quasi-criminal proceedings. The Bill makes no attempt to look at people who are led into money problems because of Government policies.
This Government freed up credit so much that I recently heard of a case of a 14-year-old girl being sent a letter by a bank asking her whether she would like to open a bank account. She placed £20 in the account arid was given a bank card which allowed her to draw out £50. Unfortunately, she did. When the mother tried to find out what was going on, she was told that she could not be given her daughter's personal details. That is ridiculous.

Dr. John Reid: My hon. Friend may wish to recall that such behaviour was not just espoused but encouraged by members of the last Conservative Government, in particular the present Lord Ridley, who went out of his way to say that children, of any age, with substantial means should be allowed to use credit cards.
I know that my hon. Friend cut his parliamentary teeth on the Bill and is much more experienced than I am on the cases affected by it. However, a constituent recently approached me and said that in 1983–84 she became bankrupt over a debt of £3,500 to a bank. By 1990, that case had not been solved. By that time, because of high interest rates, she and her husband owed over £9,000. In that year, she was told by the appointed receiver to borrow £14,000 through remortgaging her house. Two years later, she still has not seen any of that money and nor have any of her creditors. The receiver told her that it is none of her business and that £14,000 still sits with him. Is that not typical of the cases that my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. this is supposed to be an intervention.

Mr. Connarty: I am grateful for that intervention. I recommend that my hon. Friend reads the Official Report of today's debate. He will find references from the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) to the fact that creditors get little of the money realised through this procedure, but the Government have not tackled this problem.
Unfortunately, the debtor is treated as a bad person and is partly criminalised, and the Bill will not change that. I was surprised that the Government did not take the trouble to investigate the procedures used in other countries, particularly in the United States. In a number of states, people are allowed to keep their homes, which is an important factor. In some they are allowed to retain their vehicle, if they have one, because it is necessary to use it to seek, or to remain in, gainful employment. The Government have not considered any of those procedures. Instead, they have brought in an amending Bill that apologises for previous draconian Acts. I regret that the Government have done nothing to move bankruptcy proceedings into the 21st century.
I shall return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Again and again we were shown that the creditor gains little from the bankruptcy proceedings. The Bill will not improve that. Much of the time and energy of professional accountants and people in the courts are spent on paying money into the accounts of accountants and the accountant in bankruptcy. The Government should have used this time to bring in a Bill that gave more money and resources to conciliation and

reparation and that ensured that the creditor would get something back from someone who had fallen on hard times or who had over-extended himself in debt.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the Third Reading debate is about what is in the Bill rather than what is not in the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no difficulty in confirming that.

Mr. Connarty: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who wishes us to deal only with matters in the Bill.
Clause 6 deals with the new procedures. A great deal of concern has been expressed about the difficulty that people will find in using the new summary procedures, particularly with the loss of advice that will result from the change in remuneration. We predict that, regrettably, this will make accountants less likely to give advice as insolvency practitioners.
Two legal aid questions remain unanswered. The first is whether people will get sufficient legal aid support to obtain advice from lawyers. The second is whether solicitors will be available to take up legal aid money and offer advice. Another question that has been asked repeatedly arose from Lord Mackay's statement that there will be means testing in England. That gives the Opposition cause for concern. We feel that the Bill will not be implemented in the way that it is written and that people will not be able to use the new summary procedures.
I regret that the Government have not addressed these issues. If the point of Third Reading is to talk about the Bill, I can only say what I have said before—this is a cheap Bill that cheapens the cost of bankruptcy procedures in Scotland. It is a shoddy patchwork and not a real attempt to deal with bankruptcy in Scotland.

Mr. Wallace: Our wide-ranging debate on new clause 3 may allow us to keep our remarks on Third Reading relatively brief. I, too, will not divide the House, but there are still so many shortcomings in the content of the Bill that we cannot be confident that it will remain on the statute book unamended for some time to come. We have been asked to accept that the detail of legal aid will be worked out. I do not doubt the sincerity with which the detailed negotiations will be conducted, but we are being asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill of which an important part is incomplete.
We have not had adequate answers to the questions about advice, which will no longer be available to people facing bankruptcy and serious problems of debt. In earlier exchanges, it was calculated that 333 of those recommended to insolvency practitioners by citizens advice bureaux were turned away from the courts and sequestration. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) calculated a further 888, in an impressive display of mental arithmetic on his feet. My calculation is that, if the two are added together, and we multiply the result by £300 per sequestration, the rough cost of the Government's proposed scheme, that is £366,000 which may not be saved because the Government have taken away an important element of those who provide advice.
That leads me to the question of those who live in rural areas. I have no doubt that the Minister genuinely believes


that, somehow or other, the arrangements in place at the moment will continue. Often, Ministers express hopes that become weaknesses in Acts and result in expectations not being fulfilled. No doubt, the hopes expressed during the progress of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 were equally pious, but they have resulted in the problems that this Bill is attempting to address.
I have a detailed point that it was not possible to raise earlier, but which may be raised on Third Reading. We have come a long way from the original debate, when the Under-Secretary was so obviously discomforted by the fact that he appeared to be introducing a nationalisation measure. He tried to retreat and argued that the system would be open to market forces and market testing. I understand that, in market testing arrangements, the accountant in bankruptcy may be in competition with those in the private sector. Is it the intention that the accountant in bankruptcy will be involved in examining tenders? If so, there would be a potential unfairness. Perhaps the Minister can say something about that.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) mentioned my association with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. He is a generous person and will also know, from the debate in the Grand Committee and the debate on Second Reading, that I have tried to put the case for the ordinary people who find themselves in debt. I have in mind citizens advice bureaux and the Tackling Debt group. If we examine the record in Committee and on the Floor of the House, their case has been put. Perhaps the more telling questions are whether their case has been listened to and whether there has been a response to it. Some of us have doubts about that.
I conclude by reminding the House of what the Scottish Law Commission stated in paragraph 2.35 of its 1982 report:
The discharge of prior debts is one of the main objectives of a civilised system of bankruptcy law and we consider that it would be morally indefensible and politically unacceptable to recommend policies which do not, at least after the lapse of time, admit of an insolvent debtor's discharge.
There is concern that in an effort to tackle one problem another problem may have opened up. Perhaps many families will have to suffer a continuing burden of debt and all the worry that is associated with it because under the new regime they will not feel able—perhaps they will not know what to do—to do something about it. That remains a concern. As has already been said, the Bill, when enacted, will require careful monitoring.

Mr. Wilson: I shall take up directly the remarks of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It is important to return to where this proposed legislation began and why it began. It is before us because the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 generated too much demand. The result was a level of demand that the Government found not to be acceptable financially. There were so many sequestrations taking place in Scotland. In a rather perverse way, from an ideological point of view, the Government chose to bring the process into the public sector. It remains a nationalisation measure, however unpalatable that may be to some of those who are promoting it.
The Government got it wrong in 1985 in terms of projecting the scale of demand. I have not heard anything to convince me that they have it absolutely right now. I congratulate the Government retrospectively, however, on what they did in 1985, which was to recognise the injustice that the Scottish Law Commission had focused upon. They provided a humane means for people to escape from the burdens of debt.
Everything that we have sought to focus upon during our deliberations is centred on the question whether it will be more or less difficult for those who suffer problems of multiple debt and poverty to use the humane mechanism that has been provided. Only time will tell, but severe doubts remain. If a Government approach the issue by believing that the process is costing too much, the suspicion must persist that the way in which money will be saved is not through cutting the cost per case but reducing the number of cases. If that proves to be true, thousands of families in Scotland each year will not have a humane mechanism open to them.
The subsidiary concern—it has been focused upon—is the possibility that those for whom sequestration is not appropriate will be led into it because the safety valve that now exists is not accommodated within the new legislation. The message that must go out clearly from our debates—there are some who are insulated from the sort of circumstances that lead to personal sequestration—is that personal sequestration is not an easy option or a course of least resistance. Every case involves human tragedy and burdens that are based on the circumstances in which people find themselves. It is not an easy option, and it would be a tragedy if an individual for whom personal sequestration was not appropriate were to take that course as a result of anything that we are doing this evening.
During our consideration of the Bill we have dealt with many sub-plots. For example, we have dealt with the argument that the 1985 Act encouraged a great increase in personal sequestrations. We have dealt with the idea that insolvency petitioners are responsible for the rapid growth in personal sequestrations. We have dealt with the theory that there are money advice agencies that are telling people to go for personal sequestration. There are many theories for the increase in the number of personal sequestrations in Scotland, but we must not let the Government escape from the real reason for the increase, which is the rapid growth of grinding poverty that afflicts the lives of so many of our people. That is why there has been an increase in personal sequestrations. That is why debt has increased. That is why human misery has increased. People do not have enough money even to meet the commitments that they have entered into, far less to enter into new commitments that would enhance the quality of their life.
We would do a disservice to those affected by this sort of legislation in the past and those who will be affected by it in future if we did not recognise that they are victims of an economic system and economic circumstances that have led to a vast and frightening escalation of debt and poverty in Scotland. They are not guilty parties.
When the Prime Minister visited Scotland shortly before the general election he was interviewed by the Glasgow Herald. He was asked—perhaps this was one of too few occasions during those weeks—what he intended to do to deal with the problems created by poverty and deprivation. His reply was memorable. "Poverty," he said, "what poverty?" It is clear that he is truly insulated from the realities of human experience for thousands of people


in communities within a few hundred yards or a few miles from where he was speaking that day. He could have gone to any part of Britain and been told of the same circumstances, but he would still have replied, "Poverty, what poverty?"
There is grinding poverty. There is lack of income along with unemployment, the failure of social services and the failure of public provision generally to provide a safety net. That is why people live in circumstances that no society in the western world in the last decade of the 20th century should find acceptable. That is the reason why personal—

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not aware that what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is talking about is to be found in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is straying rather wide. I have been tolerant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Wilson: I am about to conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the personal failing of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that he does not realise the connection between poverty and the contents of the Bill. When we give the Bill its Third Reading, nobody should be unaware of its root cause and the root reasons for it being necessary.

Mr. Stewart: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the debate. I recognise that several hon. Members have set down points for further consideration.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that sequestration is never an easy option. I shall not weary the House with the figures, which disprove his final argument and point to a clear problem in Scotland that is not mirrored in England and Wales. I say that in the context of the way in which the law has operated since 1985.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) talked about widening the list of assets that should be exempted from resting with the permanent trustee. We fully discussed the matter in Committee and I agreed to reflect further on the treatment of compensation, especially for personal injuries. We concluded that it would prove impossible to introduce a workable general exemption in the Bill that did not itself create many anomalies. I shall write to the hon. Lady in the near future to explain in detail precisely why we reached that conclusion.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked me about the involvement of the accountant in bankruptcy. I can assure him that arrangements will be put in place to ensure that the accountant is not placed in a more advantageous position from that of other contractors in tendering for sequestration work. The hon. Gentleman made an entirely reasonable point.
I have no doubt that the Bill, when enacted, will bring significant benefits to the conduct of sequestrations in Scotland. I have in mind especially the introduction of summary administration procedures with the greater flexibility and lower costs that they will offer.
The Bill introduces a number of improvements to procedures that take account of practical experience of the

1985 Act. It has been improved by the comments of not only right hon. and hon. Members but organisations such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).
We are committed to maintaining an efficient and effective sequestration service in Scotland. That was our objective on Second Reading and remains our objective on Third Reading. No doubt the House will debate on a future occasion aspects on which several hon. Members put down markers in today's debate, but meanwhile I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LIBYA

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5894/92, relating to trade between the European Community and Libya, and supports the imposition of European Community sanctions against Libya to give effect to United Nations Security Council Resolution 748.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

AGRICULTURE

Ordered,
That Mr. Eric Martlew be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Jean Corston be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ENVIRONMENT

Ordered,
That Mr. John Battle and Mr. Tom Pendry be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Kevin Barron and Mr. Roland Boyes be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

HEALTH

Ordered,
That Mr. Roland Boyes and Mr. David Hinchliffe be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. Hugh Bayley and Tessa Jowell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

HOME AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Keith Vaz be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Donald Anderson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SOCIAL SECURITY

Ordered,
That Tessa Jowell and Mr. Ian McCartney be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Jane Kennedy and Mr. Jimmy Wray be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Ordered,
That Mr. Jim Cousins and Mr. Doug Hoyle be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Malcolm Bruce and Mr. Michael Clapham be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TRANSPORT

Ordered,
That Mr. John McFall be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr. Paul Flynn be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

M1-M62 Link Road

8 pm

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I present a petition signed by Mr. Roy Dobson of Grange moor and 7,000 other constituents, who oppose the construction of any link road between the M1 and M62.
Those who signed the petition are united in opposing both routes suggested by the Secretary of State for Transport, because the proposed link road would bring no benefits to local people or alleviate local traffic problems, but would environmentally damage the green belt and pollute the atmosphere. Such a link road would also threaten one of our present rail links and many homes. My constituents and I believe that the proposed scheme would be an outrageous use and waste of public money.
The 7,000 signatures to the petition—which were collected very quickly—demonstrate the strong feeling of local people. The petition ends with the words
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Transport to dismiss from further consideration all proposals for a link road between the M1 and M62 in the light of the destruction of homes and major damage to the environment and community life that this link road would cause.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I present a petition signed by 9,214 of my constituents who oppose the Government proposal to construct an M1-M62 motorway link in West Yorkshire. In addition to that huge petition, I have received letters from hundreds of my constituents—and not one representation in favour of the scheme.
The petition opposes both the yellow and purple proposed routes. I am happy to wholly endorse the petitioners' demands, and congratulate them on their efforts. The petition states:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Transport to dismiss from further consideration all proposals for a link road between the M1 and M62 in the light of the destruction of homes and major damage to the environment and community life this link road would cause.

To lie upon the Table.

Downpatrick Hospitals

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew MacKay.]

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in this Adjournment debate a matter of grave concern to my constituents—the provision of health and social services.
The Minister responsible sits in another place, but I am pleased that the Minister replying this evening has a deep knowledge of the subject, as he surrendered the portfolio only last spring. My constituents and I are concerned about an apparently concerted attack on hospital provision in South Down, which has two minor hospitals and one major hospital. One—the Gowan Herron hospital in Dromore—has already closed. The Mourne hospital in Kilkeel is about to be reduced to the status of a glorified general practitioners' clinic.
The centrepiece of hospital provision in South Down is the Downe group, and its future is of fundamental importance to the people of the Down and Mourne districts. I refer not only to the continued existence of proper hospital provision but to the quality of future services. While the debate must primarily proceed on medical and health grounds, there are strong and important undertones in respect of the entire district's economic and social future.
That debate has continued a long time. I remember attending public meetings and protests as long ago as 1966. The only criterion should be the proper provision of medical and health care, allied to a reasonable assessment of the cost of those facilities. It appears that decisions will be taken purely on a bookkeeping basis, financial restrictions, and cutbacks. The submissions of the Eastern health and social service board appear to be based solely on the financial shortfall of its budget for coming years. It lays the blame squarely on the Department of Health and Social Services, which is its funding authority.
It seems that the medical and health arguments follow financial dictums rather than the reverse being true. I remind the Minister that a delegation of councillors that visited the Department were assured that the Department had sole responsibility in this matter.
The question of hospital viability should revolve around clinical efficiency. A report produced two years ago by Professor Normand for the Eastern board found that the Downe group offered the highest order of clinical efficiency, and was the most efficient of all the hospital administered by the Eastern board—including the major teaching hospitals in the city of Belfast and its environs.
Over three decades, the board has denied proper capital investment in the Downe group, and there has been extreme penny-pinching in terms of personnel—presumably so that the group could be termed non-viable, because of the various restrictions imposed on it by the board.
Only last week, the Downe hospital made an application to the board for one junior doctor—which was refused. However, a number of appoints were made to the already fattened staff of junior doctors at the city hospitals. That illustrates an absence of pro rata provision as between Down and Belfast. Good luck to the people of Belfast, but justice and equity demands adequate, just and equitable funding and staff provision, in the Downe hospital group.
The Normand report was followed by an inquiry undertaken by an in-house project team. In April 1992, it categorically reported to the Eastern board that a new hospital should be built in the Downe group area, to replace the out-dated surgical and general unit there. I think that unit is about 170 years old. It is recommended that the new hospital should form an extension of the maternity hospital built and opened five or six years ago.
In June 1992, the Eastern health board published a document that has set health and social service provision on its head. The document, entitled "Framework for General (Acute) Services within the Eastern Health and Social Services Board Area", was published for so-called consultation. In July, I protested strongly, pointing out that no notice had been given to enable the House to debate that dramatic document, and that the consultation period coincided with the parliamentary recess and the summer vacation in Northern Ireland.
I should have thought that such a severe review of future hospital services would have been documented in depth. The board, however, has devoted a mere nine lines to the future of the Downe hospitals. I feel that the report pre-empted the consultative and research period by stating:
it is unlikely that the hospital would meet the future standards of clinical effectiveness required.
That is entirely contrary to the board's own in-house review, and contradicts the statistics that were available. The board had undertaken no audit of the services before making its statement.
When challenged, the board claimed that the Department had inserted that passage in its report. The Department denied it, saying, "It is the board's report." We now know that the passage was inserted by the Department, with the obvious intention of bringing about an early closure of the Downpatrick hospitals. I believe that there have been machinations involving the future of our health provision. None of it has anything to do with health; it is all to do with budgets, finance and short-term convenience.
I think that it was unfair and insulting to make such a statement. It was received with anger and hostility. In both medical and psychiatric care, the hospitals have often been at the forefront of advanced medical provision. They cater for 95 per cent. of presenting cases, and only 4 or 5 per cent. have to be transferred—as is proper—to the high-tech acute services that are available in some of the larger hospitals in Belfast. At this time of less intrusive surgery—microsurgery has now been provided in Downe—the argument should go the other way: such less intrusive methods should go out from the centre to the peripheral hospitals, rather than being brought to the centre. The same has been said about the London hospitals in the past week: the core has gone, so the periphery should be enhanced.
I believe that clinical effectiveness can be measured only by clinical outcomes. The board's own comparative performance indicators confirm that the acute medical and surgical wards in Downpatrick operate in an effective, efficient manner. The levels of outcome in acute medical and maternity wards in the Downe have outdone those of any of the other health board hospitals. The framework document, however, concentrates on inputs, failing to address the critical issue of outcomes, on a financial basis. The cost per patient admission is lower in the Downe than it is in any other acute hospital in the group.
As for medical and surgical expertise, the consultant surgeons currently employed in the Downe have a vast experience in a range of specialties: as I have said, they can deal with 95 per cent. of patient requirements, and they have reduced waiting lists to a level below the provincial average. It is interesting to note that all the major operations performed in the Downe hospitals are performed by consultant surgeons or consultant gynaecologists, and are attended by consultant anaesthetists. From a patient's first interview to the post-operative recovery stage, the patient is in the hands of a consultant; he is not dealt with by junior staff, as would happen in the larger hospitals in the cities. Such procedure is in accordance with the recommendations of the confidential inquiry into perioperative deaths—known as CEPOD—which provides the guidelines for conditions of operation.
Clinical effective indicators also show that, at all levels of staff, there is greater efficiency—whether those treated are in-patients, out-patients or day patients. The Downe group has performed very creditably.
The maternity hospital is threatened with closure. Since the opening of the Downpatrick maternity unit, there has been a substantial decrease in the perinatal mortality rate, which is lower than the Northern Ireland average. The Minister will know that the Northern Ireland average is itself much higher than that in any other part of the United Kingdom. I fear that the closure of the maternity hospital, which managed to bridge the gap, would lead to an upsurge in perinatal deaths.
Four years ago, we were told that, to be viable, a maternity unit must have a throughput of 1,000 babies a year. One would almost think that the subject of discussion was a cattle market. This year, we are told that the throughput must be 2,000 a year, and that that is required by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I am extremely suspicious of such dutch auctions. I wrote to the royal college asking, "Is big beautiful? What about the smaller units?"
In a letter dated 14 September, the college replied:
It is appreciated that it is difficult to provide such cover for Units delivering less than 1,000 babies a year and this the case in over 30 per cent. of Northern Ireland Maternity Units. Indeed, about 90 per cent. of these deliver less than 2,000 babies per year. For … very small … Units, special local arrangements are usually made within the principles of HSS A5885/91. This may often include the development of Team Midwifery … Teams consisting of midwives, GPs and Consultants. Such Teams, when carefully developed, may make possible the safe continuing use of small Units provided there is good co-operation across the Team and adequate emergency services.
I believe that that letter belies the department's selective interpretation of the position of maternity services. What the letter says is required is exactly what is happening in Downpatrick.
One of the arguments for the retention and rebuilding of the Downe hospital concerns accessibility and population. We are very much aware in our area that the population of 70,000 increases during the summer months to between 120,000 and 150,000, with the addition of day trippers. It is a highly successful tourist area, because of the proximity of the Mourne mountains. The mountains themselves lead to medical services being needed at certain times of the year.
Accessibility, travelling distances and the geography of the area make it important for us to have rapid and easy access to acute hospital services. The area has no railway services and a very inadequate and inferior road transport


system. If one looks at the social indicators, one sees that there is a very low level of private car ownership. Against that background, I suggest that accessibility is one of the major factors that demands that the Department should make provision for a new building programme in the area.
The patients charter tells us that patients have the right to choose where and how they should be treated. The people of this area have made a clear choice. On 12 September 1992, 20,000 people marched through the streets of Downpatrick and demonstrated their choice under the patients charter. I doubt whether the Department has taken any notice whatsoever of their views. The march was the culmination of about 15 rallies in various villages and hamlets throughout July and August. It was a massive demonstration of what people wanted. They made their choice with their feet and their petitions to the Department. Unless the Department is only paying lip service to those petitions and is ignoring all these people, it must do something about it.
The report of the board's project team stated clearly that, for a relatively modest sum of money—modest in terms of hospital building—proper new acute and modern facilities could be provided at the Downshire site in Downpatrick, and that they could be attached to and have a dual-purpose use with the maternity hospital. It is now within the competence of the Department to say to the people of South Down, "We have noted what you say. We note your cost-effectiveness, your efficiency and the need for accessibility. We note also that you have been given undertakings three times which have not been fulfilled."
I end by quoting from the Royal Commission on the national health service, which I quoted on another occasion. It is a somewhat ancient report, dated 1979, but it is still relevant today. It stated:
A fundamental principle of the national health service must be an equality of provision, so far as this can be achieved without an acceptable sacrifice of standards.
I believe that that dictum can be fulfilled on this occasion. The report also said:
If inflexibility is to be avoided, health authorities should implement national policy in the context of their particular geographical and demographic constraints.
Those two extracts from the Royal Commission's report are a good summary of what I have tried to say to the Minister and the Department tonight.
I hope that the Minister will provide hope of some succour for the people who are so distressed and worried not just for themselves but for future generations in the area of Downe and Mourne. I hope that he will also bear in mind that it would be economically disastrous and socially devastating if the Downpatrick complex of hospitals were to be closed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanky): I thank the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for setting out in his usual clear, cogent and reasonable manner the concerns which he shares with many of his constituents over the future of hospital services in the Downpatrick area. It is another example of the time and effort which he devotes to safeguarding the interest of the people whom he represents.
The hon. Gentleman—I find it difficult at times, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to call him my hon. Friend—is of course aware that ministerial responsibility, as he stated at the beginning of his speech, for health and social services, in Northern Ireland rests with my noble Friend Lord Arran, who, I know, is taking a keen interest in the debate. I must, however, declare at the outset more than a personal interest in the matter, having had the honour for 16 months of being charged with responsibility for health in the Province.
During that time, I became aware of the strengths of the services in the Province, and of the ways in which it might be possible to strengthen them still further within available resources. The hon. Member will therefore, I am sure, forgive me if I respond initially to his points by setting out some of the issues which I feel must be addressed if the quality of hospital services in Northern Ireland is to be maintained and, indeed, improved.
A great deal of work has gone into looking at ways in which this might be achieved. Last November, when I was the Minister at the Department of Health and Social Services, we published a regional strategy for the years 1992 to 1997, one of the central themes of which was to improve the use and quality of acute hospital services. The strategy expressed a number of aims, but I think the two most relevant to our discussion this evening—both of which, may I say, my noble Friend Lord Arran and I wholly support—are, first, that specialised hospital services should be concentrated on a smaller number of strategically placed sites, accompanied where appropriate by supporting services locally; and secondly, that there should be a substantial shift from in-patient to day and out-patient investigation and treatment.
Those are sensible aspirations which reflect the public's demand for the increasingly sophisticated and technically advanced services which lead to more effective treatment, shorter stays in hospital and better outcomes for patients. Less invasive surgery is in the interests of patients. I have often talked about the fact that many patients have to spend a considerable time in hospital recovering from the wound of the operation, let alone from what is going on inside them. Less invasive techniques mean that people have to spend less time in hospital. That must be desirable for us all.
However, I am under no illusions as to the difficulty of pursuing these aims, and, more important, the sensitivity and care that must go into achieving them. Hospitals are institutions which are particularly cherished by local communities. There is an understandable tendency for people to take the view that, while health boards or Ministers may say that, overall, people will receive a better standard of care if certain hospital services are provided at certain sites, nevertheless local hospitals must remain and, if anything, be developed further. We must balance those views against the need to achieve the best possible service for the greatest number of people within the resources placed at our disposal.
Perhaps I could put that last remark in perspective. In Northern Ireland, there are over 20 health service hospitals providing general acute services for a population of about 1.5 million. They range from large teaching hospitals such as the Royal Victoria hospital, with over 900 beds and more than 5,000 staff, to smaller hospitals such as the Route in Ballymoney, which has around 60 beds and 300 staff. The Downe hospital lies towards the latter end of this wide spectrum, having just over 100 beds providing


services in general and geriatric medicine and general surgery, with a further 24 obstetric beds provided in the grounds of the Downshire psychiatric hospital.
The cost of those services is considerable. This year, more than £1,240 million will be spent on health and social services in Northern Ireland—an increase of more than £70 million compared with last year—and of that total, the Eastern health and social services board will spend about £470 million.
Given the scale of that expenditure, I am sure that no hon. Member would disagree that it is the clear responsibility of all those involved in planning and securing services to ensure that maximum value for money is achieved at all times. Every penny saved that was wasteful expenditure will go back into patient care. The health and social services boards, holding their new responsibilities as purchasers of services, have a major role to play.
In that context, I was pleased to learn of the publication on 11 June of the eastern health and social services board's consultative document on the framework for acute hospital services in its area, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The document was not influenced by the Department; it was a matter for the board itself.
I know that the document has failed to find favour with the hon. Gentleman, but nevertheless, as the major purchaser in Northern Ireland of acute hospital services, the Eastern board must of necessity formulate a strategy for the future. I believe that its consultative document represents a constructive step towards achieving that goal.
The document explains why the existing pattern of hospital services needs to change to keep pace with modern developments and shows that, if performance in the main acute specialties in Northern Ireland were to improve to the same levels as in some English regions and some Ulster hospitals, overall bed numbers in the board could fall by more than 700, while the number of patients being treated could increase. That is very much in line with the thrust of the regional strategy of the DHSS, and it is an aim that I fully endorse.
It would be irresponsible to register such an aim without making it clear what needs to be done to achieve it. The Eastern board has done so in its document by outlining the standards that need to be met in hospitals that wish to provide acute services for the board in future. The board has been very helpful by assessing in its document the extent to which hospitals in its area meet the criteria that it has set down.
Some might not agree with that statement—I believe that the hon. Member for South Down might number among them—but only a few weeks ago, on 20 August, the hon. Gentleman met my noble Friend Lord Arran and expressed his dissatisfaction with the board's consultative document in general and with the section dealing with Downe hospital in particular. Such was his right. Last March, I well remember him expressing concern about Downe hospital in a meeting with me.
When he met my noble Friend Lord Arran, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he found the section in the Eastern board's document relating to Downe hospital exceptionable, particularly in its references to the clinical effectiveness of the hospital. I have read the section, and it is quite clear that Downe hospital was assessed in the same way and by the same criteria as other hospitals in the eastern board.
I remind the hon. Member that the document published by the Eastern board in June was issued for consultation and does not represent the final views of the board on the future pattern of acute hospital services in its area. The consultation period ended on 30 September, and I have no doubt that a great many of the hon. Member's constituents have made their views known to the board. I know that they have argued the very point that he has aired so ably on their behalf this evening.
It is now up to the board, on the basis of the outline that it provided in the document and of the comments that it received from people and organisations interested in this matter—I can assure the House that it received many—to put together its statement of purchasing intent, which will give a clear sign of the sources from which it expects to purchase services from 1994–95 onwards.
The hon. Member will, I am sure, be particularly interested in seeing that document. I know that my noble Friend Lord Arran has pressed, and will continue to press, for its early completion and has received assurances from the chairman of the board, Mr. Norman Ferguson, that it will be made available as soon as possible—hopefully, early in January.
Finally, I confirm that any proposals for closure or change of use of facilities by the Eastern board stemming from its consultative framework document and the consultation process, whether they relate to Downe or any other hospital in the eastern area, if they are of a major controversial nature—I assure the hon. Gentleman that this would be so—be agreed by my noble Friend Lord Arran before they can proceed.
My noble Friend has confirmed that he will maintain the closest possible interest in the outcome of the Eastern board's consultation and will, in considering any issue that requires his agreement, take full account of the views of those affected by the proposals. He will endeavour, if possible, to meet them and their representatives to listen to what they have to say before taking a final decision.
I thank the hon. Member for South Down for his speech, which I am sure will be used for definitive reference in the months ahead. He has served his constituents not only honourably but effectively, as I know he does on so many matters. I know that we shall hear from him again on this issue, and I assure him that we shall listen to what he and his constituents have to say.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Nine o'clock.